FRANKS v. GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Clerk shall reopen this matter; Plaintiff's letter requests (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6) to reopen this matter are DENIED; the Clerk shall close this matter. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 3/13/2018. (tf, n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

RICKY FRANKS,
Civ. No. 12-1681 (RMB)

Plaintiff,
v.
GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S
OFFICE, et al.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s letter
requests (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6) to reopen this matter. On March 14,
2012, while Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee in Gloucester County
Jail, he submitted a civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, also
alleging state tort law claims. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff
alleged that on December 3, 2010, he was wrongfully arrested on
the charges of participating in a bank robbery of Susquehanna Bank;
that Plaintiff’s vehicle was chased by police officers from New
Jersey to Pennsylvania, that Detective John Komorowski executed a
false report on the basis of which Plaintiff was wrongfully
indicted

by

Prosecutor

Mary

Piffer

of

the

Gloucester

County

Prosecutor’s Office with this bank robbery offense in New Jersey,
and later acquitted of the New Jersey charges. (Id.) Plaintiff
also asserted claims against unnamed employees of Susquehanna
bank. (Id.)

On April 19, 2012, this Court issued a Memorandum, Opinion
and Order, administratively terminating this action without filing
the complaint because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or
submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. (Mem. Op., and Order, ECF No. 3.) This Court stated that
“administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for purposes of
the statute of limitations, and that if this § 1983 case is
reopened pursuant to the terms of this Order, it is not thereby
subject to the statute of limitations bar, provided the original
Complaint was timely.” (Id.) (citations omitted). The terms of the
Order required Plaintiff to reopen the matter within 30 days. (Mem.
Op. and Order, ECF No. 3.)
More than five-and-a-half years later, on November 9, 2017,
and again on March 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted letters, without
any explanation, seeking to reopen this case. (Letter, ECF No. 4.)
On March 9, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a letter, referring to his
initial filing of the complaint, and stating that he was within
the statute of limitations.
A plaintiff cannot use an administrative termination as an
excuse to indefinitely extend the statute of limitations on claims
that he never properly brought in a timely manner. McDowell v.
Delaware State Police, (“we do not suggest that a plaintiff can
delay prosecution of an action indefinitely by withholding the
filing fee and refusing to submit a request to proceed in forma
2

pauperis.”) Due to the extreme lateness of Plaintiff’s response to
this Court’s April 19, 2012 Order instructing Plaintiff that he
could reopen this case within 30 days, the Court now declines the
request to reopen.1

See Hairston v. Gronolosky, 348 F. App’x 716,

718 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s order that case
remain closed where the plaintiff flouted the district court’s
instructions); Bricker v. Turner, 395 F. App’x 804, 804 n. 1 (per
curiam)

(3d

Cir.

2010)

(affirming

district

court’s

order

dismissing civil rights action without prejudice as a sanction for
failure

to

obey

a

court

order

or

for

failure

to

diligently

prosecute).
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion,
IT IS therefore on this 13th day of March 2018;

1

Based on the same facts alleged in the instant complaint,
Plaintiff prosecuted § 1983 false arrest and state law defamation
claims against officers of the Philadelphia Police Department and
Detective John Komorowski. See Franks v. Philadelphia Police
Department, Civ. Action No. 12-1213, 2013 WL 4042600 (E.D. Pa.
Aug. 9, 2013). The district court granted the defendants’ motion
for partial summary judgment, leaving only Plaintiff’s claim of
false arrest against Officer Schlosser and the defamation claim
against Detective Komorowski. (Id.)_After a bench trial, in which
Plaintiff represented himself, the district court granted judgment
in Plaintiff’s favor on the false arrest claim and awarded $7,500,
and found in favor of Detective Komorowski on the defamation claim.
(Id.) Plaintiff cannot relitigate those claims here. See Malles v.
Governor of Pennsylvania, 502 F. App’x 111, 112 (3d Cir. 2012)
(per curiam) (“claim preclusion, bars a plaintiff who has received
a final judgment on the merits in one action from litigating
another suit against the same parties based on the same cause of
action.”)
3

ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this matter; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s letter requests (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6)
to reopen this matter are DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall close this matter; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of
this Memorandum and Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

4