MCKNIGHT v. CAMDEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/20/2012. (nz, )n.m.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LOUIS S. MCKNIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 12-1683 (RMB)
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
LOUIS S. MCKNIGHT, #243978, Plaintiff Pro Se
Camden County Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 90431
Camden, NJ 08103
BUMB, District Judge:
Plaintiff, Louis S. McKnight, a prisoner incarcerated at
Camden County Correctional Facility, seeks to file a Complaint
asserting violation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without
prepayment of the filing fee.
This Court will grant Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Having screened
Plaintiff’s Complaint, as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A, this Court will dismiss the federal claims raised in
the Complaint and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
I.
BACKGROUND
Louis S. McKnight brings this Complaint for violation of his
constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden
County Prosecutor’s Office, Assistant Prosecutor Murphy, Martin
Farrell and Gilberto Alicea of the Camden County Prosecutor’s
Office, the Public Defender’s Office, Public Defender Margeau
Ney, Camden County Correctional Facility, Eric Taylor, Anthony
Pizarro, and Chris Fosler.
He asserts the following facts in the
statement of claim:
I was accus[ed] of aggravated assault. I turn[ed]
myself in Oct. 19, 2010. Martin Farell and Gilberto
Alicea was the investigators that interview[d] my
fiancé & Martin Farell interview[ed] me. My name is
Louis S. McKnight. My fiancé has medical records as
well as I. Mr. Martin Farell overstep[ped] his duties
as far as an investigator in this case. Mr. Martin
Farell lie[d] under oath at the Camden County Grand
Jury causing me to be charged with second degree
aggravated assault. If he would have reported his
investigation properly I would have been charged with
fourth degree or third degree aggravated assault. I
would have had a reasonable bail. I have been sitting
in this correctional facility every s[ince] 10/19/10.
First my bail was $125,000 cash or bond. Then when I
went to court my bail was reduce[d] to $75,000. I have
not been able to make bail and I sign for a speedy
trial seventeen months ago.
(Dkt. 1 at 6.)
Attached to the Complaint are several documents, including
letters from Plaintiff to New Jersey Superior Court Judge Blue,
Plaintiff’s affidavit in the New Jersey Superior Court dated May
24, 2011, regarding the circumstances of the crime for which he
was charged, documents relating to an injury to Plaintiff’s hand
in 2010, motion to dismiss in State v. McKnight, Ind. No. 115-0111 (N.J. Super. Ct., Law Div., Sept. 19, 2011, transcript of
grand jury proceeding in Indictment No. 115-01-11 dated December
2
8, 2010, and Plaintiff’s letters to Public Defenders dated
October 13, 2011, October 29, 2011, December 28, 2011, March 5,
2012, concerning his criminal proceeding.1
(Dkt. 1 at 8-71.)
For relief, Plaintiff seeks “$1,500 for every day [he] was in
here for second degree aggravated assault [because] it should
have been fo[u]rth or third degree.”
II.
(Id. at 7.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (?PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996),
requires a District Court to screen a complaint in a civil action
in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis or a
prisoner is seeking redress against a government employee or
entity, and to sua sponte dismiss any claim if the Court
determines that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A.
To survive dismissal “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief
1
Plaintiff also attached a letter dated May 26, 2011,
regarding “Class Action Suit Against Camden County Correctional
Facility.” (Dkt. 1 at 23-27.) As the identical letter is
docketed in McKnight v. Taylor, Civ. No. 12-1684 (RMB) Dkt. 1 at
8 (D.N.J. filed Mar. 19, 2012), a civil rights action against the
Warden of Camden County Correctional Facility concerning
conditions of confinement, this Court presumes this letter was
improperly filed in the present action.
3
that is plausible on its face.’ A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.'”
(2009) (citation omitted).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
Officials may not be held liable
under § 1983 for the unconstitutional misconduct of their
subordinates.
Id. at 677.
Rather, the facts set forth in the
complaint must show that each defendant, through the person’s own
individual actions, has violated the plaintiff’s constitutional
rights.
Id.
This Court must disregard labels, conclusions,
legal arguments, and naked assertions.
Id. at 678-81.
The
plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility
that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
Where a complaint pleads
facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it
stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief,” and will be dismissed.
Id. at 678
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Bistrian v. Levy,
F.3d
, 2012 WL 4335958 *8 (3d Cir. Sept.
24, 2012) (“The touchstone of the pleading standard is
plausibility”); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-211
(3d Cir. 2009) (“a complaint must do more than allege the
plaintiff's entitlement to relief.
A complaint has to “show”
such an entitlement with its facts”) (emphasis supplied).
The
Court is mindful, however, that the sufficiency of this pro se
4
pleading must be construed liberally in favor of the plaintiff,
even after Iqbal.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007).
III.
A.
DISCUSSION
Federal Claims
Section 1983 of Title 28 of the United States Code 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.
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show two
elements:
(1) a person deprived him or caused him to be deprived
of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, and (2) the deprivation was done under color of state
law.
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
As an initial matter, this Court will dismiss the § 1983
claims against Camden County Prosecutor’s Office, the Public
Defender’s Office and Camden County Correctional Facility.
The
Public Defender’s Office and Camden County Correctional Facility
are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.
See Will v.
Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); Madden v. New
5
Jersey State Parole Board, 438 F.2d 1189, 1190 (3d Cir. 1971);
Grabow v. Southern State Correctional Facility, 726 F. Supp. 537,
538-39 (D.N.J. 1989).
To the extent that the Middlesex County
Prosecutor’s Office is a governmental entity which is subject to
suit under § 1983, it is entitled to absolute immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment.
See Coley v. County of Essex, 462 Fed. App’x
157, 161 (3d Cir. 2011); Beightler v. Office of Essex County
Prosecutor, 342 Fed. App’x 829 832 (3d Cir. 2009).
This Court will also dismiss the § 1983 claims against Eric
Taylor, Anthony Pizarro, and Chris Fosler because the Complaint
presents no factual allegations regarding these defendants.2
See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is
inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead
that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s
own individual actions, has violated the Constitution”).
Plaintiff also sues Assistant Prosecutor Mary Ellen Murphy
for presenting false or inaccurate testimony to the grand jury
and obtaining an indictment for second degree aggravated assault.
However, a prosecutor is absolutely immune from damages under §
1983 for acts that are “intimately associated with the judicial
phase of the criminal process,” including initiation of a
2
Moreover, these persons - the Warden and Deputy Wardens of
Camden County Correctional Facility - are the defendants in
Plaintiff’s other action, McKnight v. Taylor, Civ. No. 1684 (RMB)
(D.N.J. filed Mar. 19, 2012), which concerns the conditions at
the jail.
6
prosecution and use of misleading or false testimony.
Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976); see also Van de Kamp v.
Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 343 (2009).
Accordingly, the § 1983
claims against these defendants will be dismissed.
Plaintiff
sues investigators Martin Farrell and Gilberto Alicea for
interviewing Plaintiff and the victim, and allegedly testifying
falsely under oath before the grand jury regarding these
interviews.
But interviewing a witness does not violate the
Constitution, and a witness who testifies (falsely) before a
grand jury has absolute immunity from any § 1983 claim based on
the witness’s testimony.
See Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S.Ct. 1497,
1506 (2012); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 332-33 (1983).
Finally, Plaintiff sues Public Defender Murphy.
Although he
does not specify in the Complaint facts showing any wrongdoing by
her, Plaintiff’s letters attached to the Complaint indicate that
Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the quality of her
representation.
However, the presumed § 1983 claim against
Murphy fails as a matter of law because a public defender does
not act under color of state law when performing the traditional
functions of counsel to a criminal defendant.
See Polk County v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981); Murphy v. Bloom, 443 Fed. App’x 668
(3d Cir. 2011).
To the extent Plaintiff claims ineffective
assistance of counsel pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, such a
claim may only be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after the
7
exhaustion of state court remedies.
See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475 (1973).
This Court is dismissing the § 1983 claims against every
named defendant.
While a District Court generally grants leave
to correct the deficiencies in a complaint by amendment, in this
case, leave will not be granted because amendment would be
futile.
See DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Properties Inc., 672 F.3d
241, 251 (3d Cir. 2012); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d
Cir. 2000).
B.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
"Supplemental jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear and
decide state-law claims along with federal-law claims when they
are so related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy."
Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524
U.S. 381, 387 (1998) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Where a district court has original jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over federal claims and supplemental
jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a),
the district court has discretion to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);
Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 983 F.2d
1277, 1284-1285 (3d Cir. 1993).
In this case, the Court is
8
dismissing every claim over which it had original subject matter
jurisdiction at an early stage in the litigation and declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, this Court will grant Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the federal
claims raised in the Complaint, and decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Dated: November 20, 2012
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?