HOYLE v. BATTEN et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 6/25/2015. (bdk, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
ARTHUR LEE HOYLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND A. BATTEN ET AL.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 15-2916(RMB)
OPINION
BUMB, District Judge:
Plaintiff Arthur Hoyle, a pretrial detainee confined at
Cape May County Jail in Cape May, New Jersey, seeks to bring
this action in forma pauperis, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights by police
officers, prosecutors, attorneys in the public defender’s
office, and the state court judge presiding over his case. Based
on his affidavit of indigence and the absence of three
qualifying dismissals within 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),1 the Court will
1
Plaintiff should be aware that he has two qualifying strikes
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from the following cases: Hoyle,
12cv1835(RMB) (D.N.J. Oct. 17, 2012)(dismissed for failure to
state a claim and upon absolute judicial immunity); and Hoyle v.
Porto, 14cv5726(RMB) (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2014)(dismissed for
failure to state a claim and upon absolute judicial immunity).
See Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 460 (3d Cir. 2013)(dismissal
based on immunity of a defendant can constitute a strike if a
court “explicitly and correctly concludes that the complaint
1
grant Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and order the Clerk of the
Court to file the Complaint.
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.
I. BACKGROUND
The defendants in this action are Raymond Batten and John
C. Porto, Cape May County Superior Court Judges; Detective
Donald Nelson, Officer Doug Osmoneda, Officer Mark Higginbottom,
and Officer Ken Martin, employees of the Middle Township Police
Department; Saverio M. Carroccia, Robert P. Hawkins, Ken Super,
Omar Perez, Paul Skill, and Joe Lander, prosecutors for the Cape
May County Prosecutor’s Office; and Fred Mick, Scott Sherwood,
and Parker Smith, employees the Public Defender’s Office in the
Cape May Courthouse. (Compl. ¶4.)
In his Complaint, Plaintiff concluded that all defendants
conspired to deprive him of his substantive due process rights,
privileges and immunities, and equal protection of law under the
reveals the immunity defense on its face and dismisses the
unexhausted complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) . . .”) (3d Cir.
2013); Coleman v. Tollefson, -- S.Ct.--, 2015 WL 2340838 (May
18, 2015)(dismissal counts as strike when appeal is pending).
2
U.S. Constitution and laws of New Jersey. Plaintiff’s only
support for his conclusions is that the defendants “interfered
by threats, intimidation and coercion through procedural rules
of presumption while acting outside the bounds of their
authority and jurisdiction as well with disregard.” (Compl. ¶6.,
ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff further alleged, without explanation, that
the defendants deceived and slandered him or “just went with the
lies,” committed fraudulent acts, and “gave me less respect
because I am black . . .” (Id.) For relief, Plaintiff seeks an
investigation of the Cape May County Courts, “better training
for all cops, remove some of the defendant from they [sic] job”
and monetary damages.
II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
This Court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time,
certain prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 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). A court must liberally construe a
document filed pro se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89. 94
(2007)(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). The
Court must “accept as true all of the allegations in the
complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn
3
therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902,
906 (3d Cir. 1997).
In addition, any complaint must comply with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule
8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contains “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” A complaint must plead facts sufficient at least to
“suggest” a basis for liability. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d
218, 236 n. 12 (3d Cir. 2004)(where defendant’s mental state was
element of the claim, Plaintiff had to allege some facts
supporting the defendant’s mental state). “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).
When assessing the sufficiency of any civil complaint, a
court must distinguish factual contentions—which allege behavior
on the part of the defendant that, if true, would satisfy one or
more elements of the claim asserted—and “[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009)(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
4
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. at 679. 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. Id.
Although the Court must assume the veracity of the facts
asserted in the complaint, it is “‘not bound to accept as true a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’” Id. at 678
(citation omitted).
Where a complaint can be remedied by an amendment, a
district court may not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, but
must 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)(dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)).
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 ....
5
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
(1988); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255–56 (3d
Cir. 1994).
IV. ANALYSIS
A.
Absolute Immunity
This is Plaintiff’s third attempt to sue a state court
judge involved in his present state court criminal case. See
supra note 1. As this Court has explained in Plaintiff’s earlier
cases, “A judicial officer in the performance of his duties has
absolute immunity from suit and will not be liable for his
judicial acts.” Capogrosso v. The Supreme Court of New Jersey,
588 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2009)(quoting Azubuko v. Royal, 443
F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir. 2006)). “A judge will not be deprived of
immunity because the action he took was in error, was done
maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he
will be subject to liability only when he has acted ‘in the
clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Plaintiff vaguely alleged in the Complaint that all defendants
“act[ed] outside the bounds of their authority and
6
jurisdiction.” (Compl. ¶ 6.) Without alleging any facts as to
what the defendant judges did that was outside the bounds of
their jurisdiction, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against
these judicial officers.
Similarly, Plaintiff has not alleged what any specific
defendant from the prosecutor’s office did to violate his rights
or how the prosecutors’ actions were taken outside of the
judicial process. A prosecutor also has absolute immunity under
certain circumstances. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430
(1976)(“[a] prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit under §
1983 for damages for actions taken as an “integral part of the
judicial process.”) The court will dismiss these claims without
prejudice, and Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to
provide the necessary factual support for his claims in an
amended complaint.
B.
Lack of Factual Allegations to Support a Claim
Finally, apart from the issue of immunity, Plaintiff’s
Complaint is so vague that it fails to put any defendant on fair
notice as to the grounds upon which his claims rest. See
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n. 3 (“[w]ithout some factual
allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant
could satisfy the requirement of providing not only “fair
notice” of the nature of the claim, but also “grounds” on which
the claim rests.”) Plaintiff alleged the defendants deceived and
7
slandered him, failed to respect him because he is black and
committed fraud against him, starting on January 28, 2008, and
“still going on today.” (Compl. ¶6.) Yet, Plaintiff has not
described how, over the many years since January 2008, any
defendant did any one of these things. (Compl. ¶6). For this
reason, all of Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b).
s/Renee Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Dated: June 25, 2015
8
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?