DIPPOLITO v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying without prejudice 17 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 3/3/15. (js)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY _________________________________________ FRANK DIPPOLITO, : : Plaintiff, : Civ. No. 13-0175 (RBK) (JS) : v. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., : : Defendants. : _________________________________________ : Plaintiff is a former federal prisoner who was previously incarcerated at F.C.I. Fort Dix, in Fort Dix, New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 1 Currently pending before the Court is defendants’ the American Correctional Association (ACA) and James A. Gondles, Jr. motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 17.) Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the first amended complaint on March 2, 2015 (see Dkt. No. 42.) that, at least in part, seeks to amend the claim raised against these two defendants. As plaintiff is seeking to amend his first amended complaint that ACA and Gondles are seeking to dismiss, their motion to dismiss will be denied without prejudice. ACA and Gondles of course would be entitled to raise another motion to dismiss should the Court grant plaintiff’s motion to amend the first amended complaint as it relates to them (as well as oppose plaintiff’s motion to amend). 1 Bivens is the federal counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Walker v. Zenk, 323 F. App’x 144, 145 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (citing Egervary v. Young, 366 F.3d 238, 246 (3d Cir. 2004)). 1 Accordingly, IT IS this 3rd day of March, 2015, ORDERED that defendants’, the American Correctional Association and James A. Gondles, Jr., motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 17.) is denied without prejudice. s/Robert B. Kugler ROBERT B. KUGLER United States District Judge 2

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?