ALFRED v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
8
OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 6/4/2014. (drw)n.m.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
MICHELLE E. ALFRED,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :
Civ. No. 13-0332 (RBK) (AMD)
OPINION
ROBERT B. KUGLER, U.S.D.J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint was screened and dismissed. However, some of plaintiff’s
claims were dismissed without prejudice. Thus, she was given leave to file an amended
complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies of her original complaint. Plaintiff has since
submitted an amended complaint. Therefore, the Clerk will be ordered to reopen this case.
At this time, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from suit. For the reasons set forth below, the amended complaint will
be permitted to proceed in part.
II.
BACKGROUND
The allegations of the amended complaint will be construed as true for purposes of this
screening. Plaintiff alleges that she went to the 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
1
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 Rebeca
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 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.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages as her requested relief and a request to convene a grand
jury. 1
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Standard for Sua Sponte Dismissal
Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 132166 to 1321-77 (Apr. 26, 1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review complaints in those civil
actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),
seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a
claim with respect to prison conditions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts
to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
1
The amended complaint also mentions that she appeared before Judge Ward on September 10,
2012. Furthermore, C. Witherspoon Stumpford works next to the judge, but has a conflict of
interest as she is related to Arthur Dennis. Additionally, the amended complaint names the State
of New Jersey as a defendant in the caption. However, the Court will not entertain claims raised
against these three defendants to the extent that plaintiff is attempting to raise them in this
amended complaint. The claims against these three defendants were dismissed with prejudice in
the original complaint.
2
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in 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. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive sua
sponte screening for failure to state a claim 2, the complaint must allege “sufficient factual
matter” to show that the claim is 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.” Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc., 708 F.3d 470, 483 n.17 (3d Cir.
2012) (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)
(emphasis added).
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 or the
District of Columbia, 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
2
“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).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (per
curiam) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F.
App’x 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)); Courteau v.
United States, 287 F. App’x 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
3
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a
judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable.
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 Harvey v. Plains Twp.
Police Dep’t, 635 F.3d 606, 609 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); see also West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
IV.
DISCUSSION
A. Claim Against Sergeant Brennum & Rebeca Seabrook
It appears as if plaintiff is attempting to assert a false arrest claim against defendants
Brennum and Seabrook. “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
F.2d 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.’” Merkle 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 significantly
4
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).
The Court will permit plaintiff’s false arrest claim against Brennum and Seabrook to
proceed past screening. Indeed, the amended complaint states that plaintiff was arrested based
upon a warrant that never in fact existed. Thus, the arresting officers could not have had
probable cause to arrest her in the first place on September 1, 2012, as she did not have an
outstanding warrant as claimed and relied upon by the arresting officers.
B. Claims Against Detective Bryan Ripley
It is unclear to the Court whether plaintiff is also attempting to bring a claim against
Ripley. To the extent that she is, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Indeed, the sole allegation against this defendant is that plaintiff told him that she did
not have a warrant. Such an allegation fails under the requisite pleading standard to state with
any facial plausibility that her rights were violated by Ripley. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Accordingly, any claims against Ripley will be dismissed without prejudice.
C. Request to Convene a Grand Jury
Plaintiff has requested that this Court convene a grand jury in light of her amended
complaint, presumably so that criminal proceedings can be brought against the defendants.
However, “this Court is without authority to institute any criminal proceedings on [p]laintiff’s
behalf, since [i]t is well established that private citizens can neither bring a direct criminal action
against another person nor can they petition the federal courts to compel the criminal prosecution
of another person.” Abdullah v. New Jersey, No. 12-4202 2012 WL 2916738, at *7 (D.N.J. July
16, 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Caracter v. Avshalumov, No. 064310, 2006 WL 3231465, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 8, 2006) (“A private plaintiff cannot force a
5
criminal prosecution because the authority to initiate a criminal complaint rests exclusively with
state and federal prosecutors.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Therefore, this
requested relief will be denied.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint will be permitted to proceed in part.
An appropriate order will be entered.
DATED: June 4. 2014
s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
6
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?