PALMS v. GIERCYK et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/31/16. (js)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CURTIS L. PALMS, also known as,
JASON G. SPENCE,
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil Action No.
14-2467 (JBS-AMD)
v.
LEAH GIERCYK, ALBERT HERBERT,
ATLANTIC CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, and BILLIE J.
MOORE,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
In this action, pro se Plaintiff Curtis L. Palms, also
known as Jason G. Spence (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), generally
alleges that Leah Giercyk (hereinafter, “Officer Giercyk”),
Albert Herbert (hereinafter, “Officer Herbert”), Atlantic City
Police Department (hereinafter, the “ACPD”), and Billie J. Moore
(hereinafter, “Judge Moore” and collectively, “Defendants”),
violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights
in obtaining, and executing upon, an arrest warrant issued
against him on November 9, 2013.
[Docket Item 10 at 7.]
Because Plaintiff brings this action in forma pauperis, the
Court has an obligation to screen the complaints under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).1
1
On August 26, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as his motion to file an
Amended Complaint. [See Docket Item 9.]
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s claims against
Judge Moore will be dismissed with prejudice on immunity
grounds, and his claims against the remaining Defendants will be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead sufficient
facts.
The Court finds as follows:
1.
Factual and Procedural Background.2
In his
substantively eight paragraph Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
generally alleges that, on November 9, 2013, Officers Giercyk
and Herbert obtained a criminal “Complaint-Warrant” against him
for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon, by swearing
to the contents of the “Complaint-Warrant” before Judge Moore
(allegedly by telephone).
[See Docket Item 10 at 8.]
Officer
Giercyk, in turned, arrested Plaintiff on the same day, and he
appeared before Judge Moore for his arraignment on November 13,
2009.
[See id. at 16-18.]
Plaintiff, however, alleges that the
issuance of the “Complaint-Warrant,” and the resulting arrest,
violated an array of his constitutional rights, based upon his
belief that the Defendant Officers did not, in fact, swear to
the contents of the “Complaint-Warrant” before Judge Moore.
[Id.]
2
For purposes of the pending motion, the Court accepts as true
the version of events set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and
construes Plaintiff’s pleading, as it must, liberally. See
Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011)
(describing the liberal construction required of pro se
submissions); Capogrosso v. Sup. Ct. of N.J., 588 F.3d 180, 184
(3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (same).
2
2.
Standard of Review.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
requires the Court to review Plaintiff’s Complaints and dismiss
sua sponte any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In this case, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
subject to dismissal because it seeks relief against an immune
defendant (Judge Moore), and because it otherwise fails to state
plausible claims for relief against the remaining Defendants
(Officer Giercyk, Officer Herbert, and the ACPD), as required by
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6), and 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3.
Judge Moore and Absolute Judicial Immunity.
Turning
first to Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Moore, the Court
reasons that these claims must be dismissed with prejudice on
the grounds of absolute judicial immunity.
“It is a well-
settled principle of law that judges are generally ‘immune from
a suit for money damages.’” Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435,
440 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11
(1991)).
Indeed, judicial officers benefit from absolute
immunity “from liability for [] judicial acts even if [the]
exercise of authority” occurred in error, “was flawed by the
commission of grave procedural errors,” or was in excess of [the
3
judicial] authority.”3
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356
(1978).
4.
Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Moore stem, entirely,
from her issuance of a “Complaint-Warrant” against him, and his
subsequent appearance before her for an arraignment.
Judge
Moore’s conduct in this respect, however, is quintessentially
judicial, and she enjoys absolute immunity from this suit.
For
that reason, the claims against Judge Moore will be dismissed
with prejudice.
5.
Officer Giercyk, Officer Herbert, the ACPD and Failure
to State a Claim.
Turning then to Plaintiff’s remaining claims,
the Court finds them equally subject to dismissal.
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a claim for relief must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim” sufficient to
demonstrate entitlement to relief.
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), in turn, requires
dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.”
6.
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
In applying these stands, the Court must liberally
construe the well-pleaded allegations, and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the pro se litigant.
3
Higgs, 655 F.3d at
Judicial immunity can be overcome “for nonjudicial acts, i.e.,
actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity,” Stump, 435
U.S. at 362, and/or for actions “taken in the complete absence
of all jurisdiction.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12. Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint contains no facts to support the application
of either exception here.
4
339 (3d Cir. 2011); Capogrosso, 588 F.3d at 184.
Despite this
liberality, however, a pro se complaint must still “contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,” to “‘state a
[plausible] claim to relief.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)).
Indeed, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Rather,
in order to prevent a summary dismissal, a complaint must
“allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d cir. 2009) (citing Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678).
7.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint requires no complex
inquiry in this instance, because it plainly fails to state
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to demonstrate
plausible claims to relief.
Indeed, in his Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff expresses little more than his unsubstantiated belief
that Officer Giercyk impermissibly swore to the contents of the
“Complaint-Warrant” before Judge Moore.
Item 10.]
[See generally Docket
From this essentially single allegation, Plaintiff
attempts to launch an array of constitutional claims.
Nevertheless, the allegations of his Amended Complaint, as
presently fashioned, fall far short of the federal pleading
requirements outlined above.
Indeed, the allegations do not
5
even make clear the precise basis for his belief that the
“Complaint-Warrant” somehow issued unlawfully.
As a result, the
Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Giercyk,
Officer Herbert, and the ACPD without prejudice.
Because it is
possible that Plaintiff may be able to cure these deferences by
alleging a sufficient factual basis, Plaintiff may attempt to do
so by filing an Amended Complaint as to these defendant officers
within forty-five days from entry of this Order accompanying
this Memorandum Opinion.
That Amended Complaint, if filed, will
be subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2), above.
8.
An accompanying Order will be entered.
March 31, 2016
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. 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?