The decedent, Phillip White, died en route to the hospital after an encounter with Vineland police officers. A federal lawsuit was filed against Vineland by Mr. White’s mother, as his Administratrix Ad Prosequendum, and two of his children. The issue in White v. City of Vineland, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199436 (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2022) was whether the children had any standing to pursue a claim for an alleged violation of their father’s constitutional rights under the civil rights laws, the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) or the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, (“NJCRA”).
Before trial, the defendants filed for a summary judgment and obtained a dismissal of certain claims, the New Jersey Wrongful Death and Survivorship statutes. The constitutional claims, Section 1983 and the NJCRA, were permitted to proceed to trial. However, at trial, the Court raised with the parties whether the children of the decedent had standing to pursue such claims. Concluding that they did not, the Court issued an order dismissing their claims. The jury returned a verdict for the defense on the claims that were not dismissed by summary judgment. Thereafter, the Court issued this opinion to explain the basis of its dismissal of the children’s claims.
The Court noted that to have a cognizable claim to sue, a plaintiff must have “standing” to assert a claim. A plaintiff must be able to show “1) an injury-in-fact, b) causation, and c) redressability.” Further, the Court stated that “a litigant must assert his or her own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest a claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”
Here the decedent’s children were not asserting “any invasion of their legally protected interests,” but, rather, were pursuing claims based on the alleged violations of their father’s rights. But, the Court found that “the children had no standing to seek relief for a violation of their father’s rights.”
The children argued that they had standing under New Jersey’s wrongful death and survivorship laws. But, the Court pointed out that Section 1983 only provides for liability “to the party injured.” Thus, only a victim or his representative can sue and no one else. The NJCRA has similar language to Section 1983.
Further, even if state law was applied as to standing, it would not provide the children with a legally protected interest. Both the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act and the Survivorship Act name the estate administrator as the proper plaintiff to pursue a claim when an injured party dies. Here, only the decedent’s mother, Ms. White, who was acting as Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of Mr. White’s estate, was a proper plaintiff under Section 1983.
The Court concluded that while it “has sympathy for these children’s loss, this Court cannot go beyond its power and give the children the ability to sue for alleged injuries to their father.”