ERNST v. BLAIR et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/18/2011. (bdk, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________________
:
JAMES SAMUEL ERNST, JR.,
:
: Civil Action No. 10-4582 (JBS)
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
O P I N I O N
:
OFC. D. P. BLAIR, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
________________________________:
APPEARANCES:
James Samuel Ernst, Pro Se
# 188241
Atlantic County Justice Facility
5060 Atlantic Avenue
Mays Landing, NJ 08330
SIMANDLE, District Judge
Plaintiff, James Samuel Ernst, currently detained at the
Atlantic County Justice Facility, Mays Landing, New Jersey, seeks
to bring this action alleging violations of his constitutional
rights in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915.

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s

complaint will be dismissed, without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
statement of claims states, in full:
On more than 5 occasions I was placed and beaten into
submission and falsely charged.
June 03.
Forced to
take meds by injection [] refused showers for weeks at
a time [] put in device call[ed] the wrap 3 or more

His

times [] not allowed to make phone calls [] not allowed
to speak with lawyer [] mental and physical abuse.
(Complaint, ¶ 4).

Plaintiff names as defendants Officer Blair,

John Doe Officers, Officer Govan, Lt. Hendricks and his wife,
Sgt. Hendricks, and Ex Sergeant Crick.

For relief, Plaintiff

asserts: “Charge all officers involved with conspiracy to defame
me and publicly apologize.”

(Complaint, ¶ 5).

He also asserts

within the complaint that the first-named defendant, Officer
Blair, “lied under oath stating I spit in his face [-] it cost 3
years in state prison.”

(Complaint, ¶ 3B).
DISCUSSION

A.

Standards for Sua Sponte Dismissal
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No.

104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26,
1996), requires a district court to review a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or
seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity.

The

Court is required to identify cognizable claims and to sua sponte
dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

See 28 U.S.C.

This action is subject to sua sponte

screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because
Plaintiff is proceeding as an indigent.

2

In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the
Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff.

See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007)

(following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).

See also United States

v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992).
Recently, the Supreme Court refined the standard for summary
dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim in Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).

The Court examined Rule

8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides
that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Fed. R.

Citing its recent opinion in Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), for the proposition that
“[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do,’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555), the Supreme Court held that, to prevent a summary
dismissal, a civil complaint must now allege “sufficient factual
matter” to show that the claim is facially plausible.

This then

“allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

See id. at

1948; Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009).

3

B.

Section 1983 Actions
A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights.
Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State
or Territory ... subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress....
Thus, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege, first, the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that the
alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting
under color of state law.

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56 (3d Cir.
1994).
In this case, Plaintiff does not set forth enough facts to
withstand § 1915 screening, pursuant to the Iqbal standard.

He

lists his complaints, but does not assert which of the named
defendants are responsible for the which of the specific
violations that he lists.

He does not give any dates concerning

the deprivations, or any factual matter that would allow the
defendants to answer the complaint.

4

Furthermore, Plaintiff asks this Court for relief that it
cannot grant, as it appears that Plaintiff is asking this Court
to compel the prosecution of the defendants who were involved in
the alleged incidents.

Even if the Court were to liberally

construe Plaintiff's request as seeking injunctive relief
compelling criminal charges and investigation by the Prosecutor's
Office, the Court finds that such a claim alleging failure to
pursue or file criminal charges is not cognizable under any
federal law, specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

See Leeke v.

Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 85-87 (1981); Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,
410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of
another”).

See also Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 137 (1986);

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985); United States v.
General Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d 1356, 1366 (9th Cir. 1987).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, as submitted, this complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, and the complaint shall
be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).

If Plaintiff is able to cure these deficiencies

through an amended complaint which provides context for his
allegations, identifies the constitutional right or rights that
he alleges to have been violated, identifies each of these
defendants and his/her role in violating these rights, and

5

provides the grounds upon which the claim is based, then
Plaintiff may file such an amended complaint in accordance with
the accompanying Order.

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

April 18, 2011

6