MCDOWELL v. BUENA VISTA STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/11/2015. (bdk, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
RANDY MCDOWELL,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BUENA VISTA STATE POLICE
:
DEPARTMENT,
:
:
Defendant.
:
___________________________________:
Civ. No. 14-7875 (NLH)
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
Randy McDowell, #228908
Atlantic County Justice Facility
5060 Atlantic Ave.
Mays Landing, NJ 08330
Plaintiff pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff Randy McDowell, a prisoner confined at Atlantic
County Justice Facility in Mays Landing, New Jersey, seeks to
bring this civil action in forma pauperis, without prepayment of
fees or security, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Based on his affidavit of indigence and the absence of
three qualifying dismissals within 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the
Court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and will order the
Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint. 1
At this time, the Court must review the Complaint 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 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in
forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison
conditions).
Because Plaintiff’s submission is devoid of
factual allegations, the Complaint will be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief will be granted.
However,
Plaintiff shall be given leave to file an amended complaint.
1
The Court notes that a complete in forma pauperis application
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) requires submission of an
institutional trust account for the six-month period immediately
preceding the filing of the Complaint. Although the account
statements provided by Plaintiff in this case span only a threemonth period (from September 11, 2014 to December 9, 2014), it
appears that Plaintiff’s incarceration began less than six
months ago and that he has supplied all the records available to
him. Accordingly, because the institutional trust account is
complete and certified by a prison official, it is deemed
sufficient and Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application will be
granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff provides little factual information in his
Complaint.
It is unclear why Plaintiff is incarcerated or the
duration of his incarceration.
Additionally, he does not
explain the charges against him or the status of those charges.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff simply alleges that he was
wrongfully accused of involvement in an unspecified criminal
case and he complains that his name was released to the press.
No dates are provided.
Although Plaintiff captions his case as against the Buena
Vista State Police Department, in the body of his Complaint
Plaintiff names as defendants: (1) Detective George of the Buena
Vista Police Department; (2) Tone Cruz, who Plaintiff states is
a manager at Vineland storage; and (3) Ms. Tylore.
Plaintiff
requests relief in the form of having his name cleared in the
news and monetary damages in an unspecified amount for pain and
suffering.
II.
STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
Every complaint must comply with the pleading requirements
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires
that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific
facts are not necessary; the statement need only ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007) (citations omitted).
While a complaint ... does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the
“grounds” of his “entitle[ment] to relief” requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do ... . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level
... .
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citations omitted).
That is, a complaint must assert “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
“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.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556).
The determination of whether the factual
allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief is
“‘a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.’” Bistrian v.
Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 365 (3d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
Thus, a court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation,” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citations omitted).
In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the
Court must be mindful to accept its factual allegations as true,
see James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675, 679 (3d Cir.
2012), and to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff,
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); United States
v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992).
In general, where a complaint subject to statutory
screening can be remedied by amendment, a district court should
not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, but should permit the
amendment. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992); Grayson
v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002)
(noting that leave to amend should be granted “in the absence of
undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, unfair prejudice, or
futility of amendment”), cited in Thomaston v. Meyer, 519 F.
App’x 118, 120 n.2 (3d Cir. 2013); Urrutia v. Harrisburg County
Police Dept., 91 F.3d 451, 453 (3d Cir. 1996).
III. 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 ... 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
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress ... .
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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108
S.Ct. 2250, 2255, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988); Malleus v. George, 641
F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011).
IV.
ANALYSIS
Even construing Plaintiff’s pro se submission liberally,
there are no factual allegations present in the Complaint which
could form the basis of a cause of action under § 1983.
As
noted above, basic information is absent from the Complaint,
including: the underlying criminal case of which Plaintiff
alleges he was wrongfully accused, the charges against Plaintiff
and the status of those charges; the purpose and duration of
Plaintiff’s incarceration; the constitutional right which
Plaintiff alleges was violated; and the date(s) on which this
alleged violation occurred.
Additionally, insufficient information is provided
regarding the named defendants.
As stated above, claims for
relief under § 1983 are properly asserted against those acting
under color of state law. See West, 487 U.S. 42, 108 S.Ct. 2250.
Plaintiff states that the second named defendant, Tone Cruz, is
a manager at Vineland Storage; and, aside from a name, Plaintiff
provides no information as to the third defendant, Ms. Tylore.
Plaintiff fails to allege either any identifying characteristics
or any facts suggesting that they violated his constitutional
rights.
It is therefore unclear how these defendants are
involved in this matter and how they constitute state actors for
purposes of a cause of action under § 1983.
Accordingly, any
claims against them will be dismissed.
As to Defendant Detective George, Plaintiff’s Complaint
indicates that he is an officer of the Buena Vista Police
Department and, thus, he could be a proper subject of a § 1983
complaint.
However, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient
information in his Complaint to state a cause of action against
him.
With respect to Detective George, Plaintiff states that he
did not conduct a full investigation, that he “he did not follow
the law” while he was investigating, and that he released
Plaintiff’s name to the press. (Compl. 4, ECF No. 1).
These are
simply conclusory statements and Plaintiff does not allege any
factual allegations regarding Detective George’s conduct so as
to state a cause of action against him under § 1983. See Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
Therefore, any claims against Detective George
will be dismissed.
To the extent Plaintiff intended to sue the Buena Vista
State Police Department, the Court notes that a State or an arm
of the state is not a “person” within the meaning of section
1983, and therefore Plaintiff's claims against the State Police
Department must be dismissed. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989)
(A State or an arm of the state is not a “person” within the
meaning of section 1983).
When Will was decided, it was settled law that a State
cannot be sued under section 1983. Id. at 65 (citing Welch v.
Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transportation, 483 U.S. 468,
472–473, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987)).
The Will court
reinforced this doctrine and further decided that the Michigan
State Police, as an arm of the state, could not be sued under
section 1983. Id. at 71 (“neither a State nor its officials
acting in their official capacities are ‘persons' under §
1983”); see also Howlett By & Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S.
356, 365, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990) (“Will
establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have
traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not
subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state
court.”).
Plaintiff repeatedly clarifies that the police department
to which he refers is a state police department and,
significantly, the caption of his Complaint labels it as such.
(Compl. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, ECF No. 1).
Accordingly, the Buena Vista
State Police Department is an arm of the state and may not be
sued under § 1983. Id.; see also Morris v. United States, No.
12-2926, 2014 WL 1272104, at *3-4 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2014)
(dismissing a section 1983 claim against New Jersey and the New
Jersey State Police because, pursuant to Will, the state and
arms of the state may not be sued under § 1983); Smith v. New
Jersey, 908 F.Supp.2d 560, 563 (D.N.J. 2012).
The Court will
therefore dismiss all claims against the Buena Vista State
Police Department as barred because the State is not a person
under section 1983.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, all claims will be
dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
1915A(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), for failure to state a
claim.
However, because it is conceivable that Plaintiff may be
able to supplement his pleading with facts sufficient to state a
claim under § 1983, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file
an application to re-open accompanied by a proposed amended
complaint. 2 See Denton, 504 U.S. 25; Grayson, 293 F.3d 103.
An appropriate Order follows.
____s/ Noel L. Hillman____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
Dated: June 11, 2015
At Camden, New Jersey
2
Plaintiff should note that when an amended complaint is filed,
it supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect,
unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts
the earlier pleading. See West Run Student Housing Associates,
LLC v. Huntington National Bank, 712 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir.
2013) (collecting cases). See also 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R.
MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (3d ed. 2008). To avoid
confusion, the safer practice is to submit an amended complaint
that is complete in itself. Id.
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?