GOODEN v. JUBILEE et al
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
Civil Action No. 14-4415(RMB)
BUMB, District Judge:
response (ECF No. 28) to this Court’s Order to Show Cause why it
Detective Juanita Harris. (Order to Show Cause, ECF. No. 27.)
another action in this Court, Gooden v. Platt, Civil Action No.
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
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.)
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:
evidence that Plaintiff was implicated in
the robbery or on the basis of evidence
prosecution while having her own credible
evidence that Plaintiff was innocent.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) provides “[n]otwithstanding
any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,
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,
person who executed Plaintiff’s November 2012 arrest warrant,
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
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
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
facilitated his prosecution after he was arrested on the robbery
charge in November 2012, only that she did not respond to his
letters. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a malicious
dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
malicious prosecution claim against Detective Harris would be
futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d
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
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?