BANKS et al v. ADLER et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/12/16. (jbk, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

[Dkt. No. 1]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
RICHARD BANKS, TAMEEKA BANKS,
Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 15-8311 (RMB/AMD)
OPINION

v.
REID ADLER, LAJUANA MORTON,
O’LUBUNMI ADESEHINWA,
Defendants.

BUMB, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon the initiation of
this matter by Plaintiffs Richard and Tameeka Banks (the
“Plaintiffs”), who seek to proceed without prepayment of fees
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

When a non-prisoner seeks

permission to file a civil complaint in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. § 1915, the applicant is required to submit an affidavit
that sets forth his or her assets and attests to the applicant’s
inability to pay the requisite fees.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a);

Roy v. Penn. Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 14-4277, 2014 WL 4104979, at *1
n.1 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014) (citations omitted).

The decision

whether to grant or to deny the application should be based upon
the economic eligibility of the applicant, as demonstrated by
the affidavit.
1976).

See Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15, 19 (3d Cir.

Having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ application, the Court

hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma
pauperis.

The Court now proceeds to screening pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ allegations are fairly straightforward.

On or

around November 20, 2015, Defendant O’Lubunmi Adesehinwa, a
worker for Child Protection and Permanency (“CP&P”), arrived at
Plaintiffs’ residence to investigate an abuse claim.1
3.)

(Compl. at

Defendant Adesehinwa placed in his report that an officer

claimed Plaintiff Tameeka Banks was in possession of an empty
bottle of Oxycontin that had been filled two days prior.

The

report also indicated that Plaintiffs were involved in two
instances of domestic violence.

Plaintiffs dispute the veracity

of the report and allege that “Mr. Adesehinwa falsified his
report and submitted it.”

(Id.)

The following day, presumably based upon the report filed
by Mr. Adesehinwa, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant LaJuanna
Morton “kick[ed Plaintiff Tameeka Banks] out of the home” and
suspended all visitation with her and Plaintiff Richard Banks’
son.

Defendant Morton told Plaintiff Richard Banks that she was

acting under the authority of Deputy Attorney General Reid

Plaintiffs refer to this person as a DYFS worker, short for
Division of Youth and Family Services. DYFS is the former
acronym regarding what is now CP&P.
1

2

Adler, also a defendant in this matter.

(Id.)

Plaintiffs

allege that Defendant Morton “further falsified anonymous calls
into her record, and numerous reports . . . .”
II.

(Id.)

STANDARD FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must

preliminarily screen in forma pauperis filings, and must dismiss
any filing that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a
complaint contain:
(1)

[A] short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support;

(2)

[A] short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3)

[A] demand for the relief sought, which may include
relief in the alternative or different types of
relief.

“[A] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's
entitlement to relief. A complaint has to ‘show’ such an
entitlement with its facts." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d
203, 311 (3d Cir. 2009). However, in screening a complaint to
verify whether it meets this standard, this Court is mindful of
the requirement that pro se pleadings must be construed

3

liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. Ed 652 (1972).
III. ANALYSIS
Applying the requisite liberal construction, the Court
construes Plaintiffs’ claims as ones for violation of their
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Nevertheless, the

Court declines to proceed through to the screening stage based
on the scant nature of the allegations as they now stand.
At this juncture, the Court rules that Plaintiff has not
stated plausible claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a).

Indeed, absent further information, the Court is wary

that Plaintiffs are utilizing this action as an end-run around
state court proceedings meant to address the very facts
Plaintiffs allege.

As such, prior to permitting the Complaint

to be filed and summons to be issued, Plaintiffs must amend to
outline what, if any, state court proceedings on the topic
transpired before and after the events outlined in the
Complaint.

The Court cautions the Plaintiffs that this Court

may not serve as an appellate court to determinations made by
state courts and may not re-evaluate issues that were previously
decided.
As such, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.

The Court additionally ADMINSITRATIVELY
4

TERMINATES this matter for thirty (30) days during which
Plaintiffs may amend their allegations as outlined above to more
fully describe the legal status and proceedings of their custody
dispute with CP&P.

DATED: April 12, 2016
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5