CALDWELL v. VINELAND MUNICIPAL COURT et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 04/28/2011. (tf, n.m.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RAHIM R. CALDWELL,
HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 08-4102 (JBS-AMD)
v.
VINELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendants.
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
By Opinion and Order filed March 14, 2011, this Court
screened Mr. Caldwell's original Complaint for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

[Docket Item 3].

For reasons expressed in

that Opinion, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, without prejudice
to the Plaintiff's opportunity to cure the enumerated
deficiencies by filing an Amended Complaint within twenty days of
the entry of the accompanying Order.

On April 5, 2011, Plaintiff

submitted an Amended Complaint [Docket Item 5] which this Court
now reviews.

Again, since the Amended Complaint is filed in

forma pauperis, the Court must review the pleading to determine
whether the action is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

See 28

The Amended Complaint provides scarcely any more detail than
Mr. Caldwell provided in the initial Complaint.

The Amended

Complaint states in its entirety:
Plaintiff Rahim R. Caldwell claims on 8-15-06
or after 8-15-06, the defendants violated his
united states constitutional rights under the
fourteenth amendment due process, and right
to a fair hearing by The defendants municipal
prosecutor Scott Pagliughi stating he has a
bias and a prejudice against plaintiff and
that he is also allowed to have a bias and a
prejudice against plaintiff. The defendants
statement was in response to plaintiffs
request to change venue and transfer the case
to another court other than Vineland
municipal court, based on plaintiffs claim
that plaintiff cannot have a fair trial in
Vineland municipal court based on municipal
prosecutor has a bias and a prejudice against
plaintiff. Vineland municipal court Public
defender Jose Velez did nothing in response
when plaintiff constitutional rights were
violated. Plaintiff requests a trial by
jury.
Apparently, Plaintiff was named as a defendant in an
unspecified case in the Vineland Municipal Court, where the
municipal prosecutor was Defendant, Scott Pagliughi, and
Plaintiff's defense counsel was Defendant, Jose Velez, a courtappointed public defender.

He alleges he requested a change of

venue and transfer of the case to another court other than the
Vineland Municipal Court, claiming that he would be denied a fair
trial because the municipal prosecutor has a bias and a prejudice
against him.

The Amended Complaint does not allege whether the

2

motion to transfer was denied, nor does the complaint allege
whether Mr. Caldwell was convicted of the charge.
If we assume he was convicted, this federal court cannot
hear his claim for two reasons.

First, the direct remedy for a

conviction in violation of due process is an appeal to the
Superior Court of New Jersey, not to the federal court.

The

federal court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from
state court convictions, with the limited exception provided
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for the review of a state conviction in
which the petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies
of appeal and post-conviction relief.

Second, the Court may not

address a claim of deprivation of procedural rights that would
necessarily undermine a state court verdict, unless the Plaintiff
has first succeeded in setting aside his state court conviction
on appeal or post-conviction relief.
477 (1994).

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

In this case, if Plaintiff is alleging that he was

deprived of the right to a fair trial, this federal court cannot
hear that claim without necessarily implicating the fairness of
his state court conviction, and accordingly, this case must be
dismissed.
Even if the Plaintiff was not convicted in the Vineland
Municipal Court, this case must be dismissed on grounds of
immunity.

The Plaintiff seeks relief against the Vineland

Municipal Court, the municipal prosecutor, and his appointed

3

defense attorney.

All three entities are immune from suit for

monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court.

The

Eleventh Amendment protects states and their agencies and
departments from suits in federal court regardless of the type of
relief sought.
100 (1984).

Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,

Similarly, the Eleventh Amendment bars federal court

suits for money damages against state officers in their official
capacities.

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985).

To

the extent that Mr. Caldwell sues Mr. Pagliughi in his official
capacity as a municipal prosecutor, Eleventh Amendment immunity
protects this defendant.

Moreover, Section 1983 does not

override a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Quern v. Jordan,

440 U.S. 332 (1979).
To the extent that Mr. Caldwell might be attempting to sue
Mr. Pagliughi and Mr. Velez in their individual capacities, they
are similarly immune.

First, a prosecuting attorney who acts

within the scope of his or her duties in initiating and pursuing
criminal prosecution is not amenable to suit under Section 1983.
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 410 (1976).

Therefore, acts

undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of
judicial proceedings or for trial, or which occur in the course
of his role as an advocate for the prosecution, are entitled to
the protections of absolute immunity.
509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993).

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons,

Thus, the Amended Complaint will be

4

dismissed as against defendant Pagliughi because he is immune
from suit.
Court-appointed counsel, including public defenders, are
also absolutely immune from civil liability under Section 1983
when acting within the scope of their professional duties.

Black

v. Bayer, 672 F.2d 309, 317 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 916
(1982).

Furthermore, a defense attorney is also entitled to

dismissal of a civil rights action on the ground that it fails to
state a claim, because lawyers are not “state actors” for
purposes of Section 1983 liability.

Thus, as the Supreme Court

has held, “[A] lawyer representing a client is not, by virtue of
being an officer of the court, a state actor 'under color of
state law' within the meaning of § 1983.”
454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981).

Polk County v. Dodson,

This applies equally to a public

defender performing a defense lawyer's traditional functions, as
in this case.

Id., 454 U.S. at 325.

Thus, the Amended Complaint

against defendant Velez must also be dismissed on grounds of
immunity and failure to state a claim.
In conclusion, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to
survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and it will be
dismissed.

The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted and it seeks relief against
defendants who are each immune from liability under federal law.
Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to correct these

5

deficiencies in the past, he has not done so, and the dismissal
with therefore be with prejudice.
The accompanying Order will be entered.

April 28, 2011
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
United States District Judge

6