# Estate of Adriano Roman, Jr. v. City of Newark > Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · January 29, 2019 · 914 F.3d 789 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887937 ## Case - **Full name:** *The ESTATE OF Adriano ROMAN, Jr., Appellant v. CITY OF NEWARK; City of Newark Police Department; Anthony Campos, Chief of Police; Rodger C. Mendes; Albano Ferreira ; Onofre H. Cabezas; Joseph Cueto; FNU Ressureicao; FNU Golpe; Joyce Hill, Individually and in Their Capacity as Police Officers; John Does 1-20, as Fictitious Names for Presently Unknown Agents Member Commissioners and Chiefs *(Amended Pursuant to Clerk's Order Dated 1/25/2018) - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - **Decided:** January 29, 2019 - **Citations:** 914 F.3d 789 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jordan - **Judges:** Jordan, Hardiman - **Cited by:** 762 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887937 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - concluding a plaintiff sufficiently alleges a policy or custom was the proximate cause of his injuries if he “demonstrates [the defendant] had knowledge of similar unlawful conduct in the past, . . . failed to take precautions against future violations, and that [its] failure,… - stating “[a] plaintiff sufficiently pleads deliberate indifference by showing that “(1) municipal policymakers know that employees will confront a particular situation, (2) the situation involves a difficult choice or a history of employees mishandling, and (3) the wrong choic… - holding that a plaintiff illustrates that a custom was the proximate cause of his injuries by demonstrating that the defendant “had knowledge of similar unlawful conduct in the past, failed to take precautions against future violations, and that its failure, at least in part, … - explaining that a policy allegation based solely on a single incident is not plausible; a plaintiff must instead allege that a defendant had knowledge of similar unlawful conduct in the past, failed to take precautions against future violations, and that failure was affirmativ… - holding that, when reviewing a Monell claim, a district court could “fairly infer” that the problems leading to [a consent decree] were occurring during the time of [the plaintiff’s] allegations because the DOJ investigation resulting in the consent decree was active when the … ## Opinion text JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join the majority opinion and write separately only to note that, even if we were to ignore the suppression hearing transcript and the press release and the Star Ledger article, there is still a sound basis to conclude that Roman has stated plausible claims for municipal liability. Our panel is united in understanding that we can properly consider the consent decree because it was provided to the District Court and was referenced and relied upon in Roman's amended complaint. Those two sources - the consent decree and the amended complaint - are sufficient to overcome the motion to dismiss the claims against the City of Newark. The consent decree supports the allegations in the amended complaint in a number of respects. For example, it expressly prohibits Newark Police officers "from relying on information known to be materially false or incorrect to justify a warrantless search or to seek a search warrant[.]" (App. at 158). A fair inference from that prohibition is that it was needed precisely because the police were often relying on false information to justify warrantless searches. That inference bolsters Roman's allegation that "[n]o drugs were found in [his] possession" and yet the police "arrested [him] and falsely charged him with possession of a controlled dangerous substance[.]" (App. at 263 ¶¶ 28-29). In another instance, the consent decree suggests that there has been a lack of training and supervision in the Newark Police Department. To remedy that deficiency, the consent decree requires the Department to "provide all officers with at least 16 hours of training on stops, searches, arrests, ... [and] training ... in ... Fourth Amendment issues" as well as mandating "desk lieutenant[s] or unit commander[s] [to] review each arrest report by officers under their command[.]" (App. at 159-61). The inference that there was inadequate training supports Roman's allegation that the Department's officers, "through their actions, inactions, course of conduct, poor or non-existent training and deficient supervision[,] caused ... [the] illegal deprivation of [his] liberty[.]" (App. at 265 ¶ 48). As a final example, the consent decree says that the Department must "conduct integrity audits and compliance reviews to identify and investigate all officers who have engaged in misconduct including unlawful ... searches[ ] and seizures[.]" (App. at 192). The need for such audits and reviews lends plausibility to Roman's allegation that the "City had a custom and practice of inadequately investigating ... citizens' complaints regarding illegal search and seizure[.]" (App. at 272 ¶ 84). Thus, looking only at the amended complaint together with the consent decree, and giving Roman the benefit of all favorable inferences, as we must at this stage, there is a sufficient basis to say that Roman has stated plausible claims for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Dismissal of those claims was therefore an error. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887937. Public record. Not legal advice.