COPELAND v. TOWNSHIP OF PENNSAUKEN

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM ORDER: ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively terminate this matter; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have an opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by this Court and re-open this matter within 20 days of the date of entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/14/2014. (tf,n.m. )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

MARCIA COPELAND,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 14-2002 (RMB/AMD)
v.
TOWNSHIP OF PENNSAUKEN,

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on its own motion.

On March

31, 2014, Plaintiff, Marcia Copeland filed a Complaint in this Court
citing “Color of Law Abuses 18 USC 241 [sic].”

[Docket No. 1]. In

addition, Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to assert causes of action
for what Plaintiff perceives to be “illegal warrants” for grass
maintenance.

As stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, there have not been

any arrests related to these alleged illegal warrants.

Plaintiff

also asserts complaints related to the issuance of tickets for failure
to pull various permits – e.g., “Mr. Lucyk issued a ticket for failing
to pull a permit for a dumpster.”
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint
contain:
(1) [A] short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) [A] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) [A] demand for the relief sought, which may include relief
1

in the alternative or different types of relief.
In addition, "a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's
entitlement to relief.
with its facts."

A complaint has to 'show' such an entitlement

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 311 (3d Cir.

2009).
As an initial matter, this Court notes that Plaintiff purports
to assert her claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241, which is a criminal
statute.

As a private citizen, Plaintiff cannot assert a civil cause

of action in this Court pursuant to a federal criminal statute.

See

Kent v. Vickers, 481 Fed. Appx. 709, 711 (3d Cir. June, 5 2012)
(affirming the District Court's order which dismissed the complaint
and explained that plaintiff, “as a private citizen, did not have the
right to bring a criminal case against the defendant nor could she
proceed on a civil cause of action based on federal criminal laws.”)
Moreover, Plaintiff’s vague assertions of the issuance of
“illegal warrants,” where there are no allegations of false arrest
fail to properly demonstrate either a grounds for jurisdiction in this
case or to show an entitlement to relief.

Accordingly, the Court sua

sponte finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet the
requirements of Rule 8 and will dismiss it without prejudice.

See

Huafeng Xu v. Arpert, 2014 WL 200262, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 15, 2014)
(“The Court has the power to dismiss claims sua sponte under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” (citing Bintliff–Ritchie v. Am. Reins. Co., 285 F. App’x
2

940, 930 (3d Cir. 2008)); Bryson v. Brand Insulations, Inc., 621 F.2d
556, 559 (3d Cir. 1980).
FOR THESE REASONS, IT IS on this 14th day of April 2014, hereby
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively
terminate this matter, subject to re-opening as set forth below; and
it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have an opportunity to file an
amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by this Court
and re-open this matter within twenty (20) days of the date of entry
of this Order.

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

3