GOODEN v. JUBILEE et al
Filing
29
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/12/16. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Maurice Gooden,
Plaintiff,
v.
Juanita Harris,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 14-4415(RMB)
OPINION
BUMB, District Judge:
I.
BACKGROUND
This
matter
comes
before
the
Court
upon
Plaintiff’s
response (ECF No. 28) to this Court’s Order to Show Cause why it
should
not
dismiss
the
malicious
prosecution
claim
against
Detective Juanita Harris. (Order to Show Cause, ECF. No. 27.)
Upon
taking
judicial
notice
of
documents
Plaintiff
filed
in
another action in this Court, Gooden v. Platt, Civil Action No.
07-4716(RMB-JS)
(D.N.J.),
it
appeared
that
Detective
Juanita
Harris was not involved in Plaintiff’s November 2012 arrest or
in referring him for prosecution. (Id.) Therefore, this Court
required Plaintiff to show cause why his malicious prosecution
claim against Harris should not be dismissed. In Plaintiff’s
response, he alleged only that he wrote to Detective Harris
1
about his innocence after his November 30, 2012 arrest, and she
ignored his letters. (See Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show
Cause, ECF No. 28.)
II.
DISCUSSION
On
August
4,
2014,
this
Court
granted
Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(Order, ECF No. 5.) The Court liberally construed Plaintiff’s
complaint as alleging Detective Harris:
(a)
was
the
[person]
who
executed
Plaintiff’s
arrest
warrant
without
any
evidence that Plaintiff was implicated in
the robbery or on the basis of evidence
known
to
her
as
false;
and/or
(b)
facilitated
Plaintiff’s
continuous
prosecution while having her own credible
evidence that Plaintiff was innocent.
(Opinion,
ECF
No.
4
at
8.)
The
Court
allowed
the
case
to
proceed. (Id.)
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) provides “[n]otwithstanding
any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,
the
court
shall
dismiss
the
case
at
any
time
if
the
court
determines that--(B) the action or appeal--(ii) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.”
By taking judicial notice of documents Plaintiff filed in
Gooden v. Platt, Civil Action No. 07-4716(RMB-JS) (D.N.J.) at
the time of his November 2012 arrest and subsequent prosecution,
it
appeared
to
the
Court
that
2
Detective
Harris
was
not
the
person who executed Plaintiff’s November 2012 arrest warrant,
and
she
did
not
facilitate
his
prosecution
on
the
robbery
charge. (Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff now alleges
only that Detective Harris failed to intervene on his behalf
when he wrote to her about his innocence after his November 2012
arrest
and
subsequent
prosecution.
(Plaintiff’s
Response
to
Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 28.)
To prevail on a Fourth Amendment malicious
prosecution claim under section 1983, a
plaintiff must establish that:
(1) the defendant initiated a criminal
proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding
ended in [the plaintiff's] favor; (3) the
defendant
initiated the proceeding without probable
cause; (4) the defendant acted maliciously
or for a purpose other than bringing the
plaintiff to justice; and (5) the plaintiff
suffered deprivation of liberty consistent
with the concept of seizure as a consequence
of a legal proceeding.
Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273, 296-97 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting
Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75, 82 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Rose
v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 349 (3d Cir. 1989).
Here, Plaintiff does not allege, as the Court assumed when
it
liberally
Harris
construed
executed
Furthermore,
his
Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s
arrest
does
complaint,
warrant
not
on
allege
that
November
that
Detective
30,
Detective
2012.
Harris
facilitated his prosecution after he was arrested on the robbery
3
charge in November 2012, only that she did not respond to his
letters. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a malicious
prosecution
claim
against
Detective
Harris.
The
Court
will
dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Dismissal
will
be
with
prejudice
because
amendment
of
the
malicious prosecution claim against Detective Harris would be
futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d
Cir. 2002).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above, in the accompanying Order
filed herewith the Court will dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Dated: April 12, 2016
4
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?