ALFRED v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 33

OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 3/23/2016. (tf, n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
MICHELE E. ALFRED,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civ. No. 13-0332 (RBK) (AMD)
:
v.
:
:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
:
OPINION
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :
ROBERT B. KUGLER, U.S.D.J.
I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Michelle E. Alfred, is proceeding pro se with an amended civil rights complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court previously screened plaintiff’s amended
complaint and permitted plaintiff’s false arrest claims against Sergeant Brennum and Rebeca
Seabrook1 to proceed. Subsequently, this Court denied two requests by plaintiff to amend her
amended complaint. Presently pending before the Court is defendant Seabrook’s motion to
dismiss the amended complaint against her for failure to state a claim.2 For the following
reasons, Seabrook’s motion to dismiss will be granted and the amended complaint will be
dismissed without prejudice.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD MOTION TO DISMISS COMPALINT PURAUNT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6)

In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “accept all factual
allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
determine whether under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to
This defendant’s first name is actually spelled Rebecca.
The summons and complaint against Brennum was returned to the Court as unexecuted. Thus,
he has never been served in this case.
1
2

relief.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting
Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir.2008)). According to the Supreme
Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “a pleading that offers 'labels or conclusions' or 'a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”' 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, a complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to show that its claims
are facially plausible. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). “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.”
Fair Wind Sailing, 764 F.3d at 308 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Moreover, while pro se
pleadings are liberally construed, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their
complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir.
2013) (citation omitted).
III.

BACKGROUND

This Court laid out the factual background of the amended complaint in its prior
screening Opinion which stated as follows:
Plaintiff alleges that she went to Atlantic City Police Station on
September 1, 2012, to file a complaint against a woman who had
filed a false report against her. She was accompanied to the police
station by Arthur Dennis, who is the father to plaintiff’s children.
After finishing filing the report, Sergeant Brennum appeared with
another officer named Rebec[c]a Seabrook. Sergeant Brennum
then told plaintiff that she had a warrant and that she had to pay
$500 so that she could then be released on her own recognizance.
However, plaintiff states that she spent eight days in the county
jail. She was released on September 8, 2012.
Plaintiff states that in fact she did not have a warrant against her at
all. She also states that she subsequently went to the prosecutor’s
office in Mays Landing, New Jersey, and spoke with Detective
2

Bryan Ripley. Ripley also told her that she did not have a warrant.
Whereupon, plaintiff showed Ripley that she was in fact just in the
county jail.
(Dkt. No. 8 at p. 1-2) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages as relief in her amended complaint.
IV.

DISCUSSION

A. Defendant Seabrook’s Motion to Dismiss
The first step that this Court must undertake in analyzing Seabrook’s motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim is to set forth the elements of the claim against Seabrook that was
proceeded, specifically false arrest. “To state a claim for false arrest under the Fourth
Amendment, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that there was an arrest, and (2) that the arrest was
made without probable cause.” James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675, 680 (3d Cir. 2012)
(citing Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 634 (3d Cir. 1995); Dowling v. City of
Phila., 855 F2d 136, 141 (3d Cir. 1988)). “‘Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and the
circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a
reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be
arrested.’” Merkel v. Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 788 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Orsatti
v. New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 482 (3d Cir. 1995)); see also Minatee v. Phila. Police
Dep’t, 502 F. App’x 225, 228 (3d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The arresting officer must only
reasonably believe at the time of the arrest that an offense is being committed, a significant lower
burden than proving guilt at trial. See Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F.3d 595, 602 (3d Cir. 2005);
see also Minatee, 502 F. App’x at 228 (citation omitted).
This Court permitted plaintiff’s false arrest claim to proceed against Seabrook because
she stated that she was arrested based upon a warrant that never existed. However, as Seabrook
correctly points out, plaintiff has provided the Court with a copy of her warrant. While it was not

3

attached to her amended complaint that was screened, it was attached to a supplemental letter to
her original complaint. (See Dkt. No. 2 at p. 4) After plaintiff’s amended complaint was
screened, plaintiff again provided documentation that a warrant existed prior to her being
arrested. (Dkt. No. 11 at p. 6) This Court can consider these documents in deciding Seabrook’s
motion to dismiss because they are items that appear in the record of the case. See Siwulec v.
J.M. Adjustment Services, LLC, 465 F. App’x 200 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting that court can consider
items appearing in the record of the case in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6))
(citing Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist. 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006)).
As a panel of the Third Circuit has noted, immunity is generally extended “to an officer
who makes an arrest based on an objectively reasonable belief that there is a valid warrant.”
Adams v. Officer Eric Selhorst, 449 F. App’x 198, 202 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Berg v. Cnty. of
Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 273 (3d Cir. 2000)). However, “an apparently valid warrant does not
render an officer immune from suit if his reliance on it is unreasonable in light of the relevant
circumstances.” Id. (citing Berg, 219 F.3d at 273). As stated in supra Part II, plaintiff based her
false arrest claim against Seabrook on the factual allegation that there was no warrant to arrest
her. However, as detailed above, the record supplied by plaintiff to this Court contradicts that
allegation as the warrant itself is part of the record in this case. Furthermore, there is no
allegation in the complaint that Seabrook’s reliance on this warrant was unreasonable. Because it
is at least theoretically possible that plaintiff could raise an allegation that Seabrook’s reliance on
this warrant was unreasonable in light of the relevant circumstances, this Court will dismiss the
complaint as to Seabrook without prejudice at this time. Plaintiff shall be given one final
opportunity to raise a sufficient false arrest claim against her if she elects to do so.

4

B. Defendant Brennum
As noted in supra Part II, this Court permitted plaintiff’s false arrest claim against
defendant Brennum to initially proceed past screening as well. To date, Brennum has not been
served with the amended complaint. However, this Court is permitted to screen the complaint “at
any time” to determine whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).3 The same reasons why plaintiff has failed to state a
claim against Seabrook hold true for Brennum as well. Therefore, the false arrest claim against
Brennum will also be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Like her claims
against Seabrook however, plaintiff shall be given one final opportunity to state a claim against
Brennum if she elects to do so.
C. Additional Request to Add Parties
Plaintiff has also filed a request to add parties to her amended complaint that was not
previously analyzed by this Court. (See Dkt. No. 11) In general, leave to amend a complaint is
freely given under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). However:
A district court may deny leave to amend a complaint if a
plaintiff's delay in seeking amendment is undue, motivated by bad
faith, or prejudicial to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Moreover, the court may deny a request if
the movant fails to provide a draft amended complaint, see Lake v.
Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 374 (3d Cir. 2000), or may refuse to allow
an amendment that fails to state a cause of action. Adams, 739 F.2d
at 864, citing Massarsky v. General Motors Corp., 706 F.2d 111,
125 (3d Cir. 1983).

3

As this Court discussed in its prior screening Opinion, the legal standard for dismissing a
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)((ii) is the same as
that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Dkt.
No. 8 at p. 3 n.2 (citations omitted))
5

Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267, 272–73 (3d Cir. 2001). In this case,
plaintiff failed to provide this Court with a draft of the proposed amended complaint, which
alone is sufficient to deny her request to add parties. Indeed, as one leading treatise has stated:
[T]o ensure that the pleadings give notice of all the issues that are
in the controversy so they can be handled and comprehended
expeditiously, the safer practice is to introduce an amended
pleading that is complete in itself, rather than one that refers to the
prior pleading or seeks to incorporate a portion of it.... Even if the
pleading is lengthy and involved, a self-contained amended
pleading will assist the parties and the court in dealing with the
issues better than one that is replete with references to another
pleading.
6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (3d ed.).
Nevertheless, plaintiff’s request to add parties fails for additional reasons as well. Plaintiff seeks
to add John Tonelli, who is purportedly on the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct for the
Supreme Court of New Jersey, and Christina LaLena, who is the Municipal Division Manager
for the Superior Court of New Jersey, Municipal Division of Atlantic and Cape May Counties, as
defendants in this action. He alleges that each of these two individuals purportedly sent him false
documentation of the purportedly false arrest warrant. It is unclear exactly what type of
constitutional claim plaintiff is seeking to bring against these two judicial employee individuals.
Thus, plaintiff’s allegations fail to satisfy the Iqbal facial plausibility standard.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that these two individuals are also perhaps immune from
suit as well. Indeed, it appears from the complaint that plaintiff is alleging claims against the
court employee defendants associated with their functions in assisting with the judicial process.
As such, these defendants are presumably be immune as well. See Stout v. Naus, No. 09-0380,
2009 WL 1794989, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 23, 2009) (citing Marcedes v. Barrett, 453 F.2d 391 (3d
Cir.1971) (holding that quasi-judicial immunity applied to clerk of courts, an administrative

6

assistant to the present judge and a court reporter); Henig v. Odorioso, 385 F.2d 491, 494 (3d
Cir. 1967) (holding that judicial employees executing judicial orders are immune from suit);
Davis v. Phila. Cnty., 195 F. Supp. 2d 686 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (holding that quasi-judicial immunity
applies to court staff, such as clerks of judicial records and court reporters)); see also Sirbaugh v.
Young, 25 F. App’x 266, 268 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[J]udicial employees are immune from damages
for the performance of quasi-judicial duties.”).
Finally, in list form, plaintiff names a plethora of additional defendants he seeks to add to
this action. However, plaintiff fails to allege the personal involvement of these defendants with
respect to her false arrest claim which is required to properly plead a Section 1983 claim. See
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.1988); see also In re Bayside Prison Litig.,
No. 97–5127, 2007 WL 327519, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan.30, 2007). Personal involvement can be shown
through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence. See Rode,
845 F.2d at 1207; see also Baker v. Monroe Twp., 50 F.3d 1186, 1190–91 (3d Cir. 1995);
Jackson v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 12–7538, 2013 WL 1844636, at *3 n.1 (D.N.J. Apr.
29, 2013). No such allegations of personal involvement are made by plaintiff in her request to
add parties. Accordingly, she fails to make allegations against them with the specificity required
by Twombly and Iqbal. Therefore, her request to add them as defendants will be denied without
prejudice. Plaintiff shall be given one final opportunity to raise in a proposed second amended
complaint allegations against these defendants. In any proposed second amended complaint that
the plaintiff may elect to file, she must state each defendants’ personal involvement in the
allegations giving rise to her claims for her to properly state a claim that is entitled to relief.

7

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Seabrook’s motion to dismiss will be granted. Furthermore,
plaintiff’s claims against Brennum will be dismissed without prejudice. Finally, plaintiff’s
request to proceed with other parties involved will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff shall be
given one final opportunity to submit a proposed second amended complaint that corrects the
deficiencies of the complaint as stated in this Opinion if she elects to do so.

DATED: March 23, 2016

s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge

8