FINNEMEN v. BERNARDIN et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/12/16. (jbk, )
[Dkt. Ent. 1]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
NASIR FINNEMEN,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 15-8335 (RMB/JS)
OPINION
v.
HON. DANIEL A. BERNARDIN,
PROSECUTOR TIMOTHY J. HIGGINS,
JOHN A. TONELLI, ROCCO A.
DEPERSIA,
Defendants.
BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff Nasir Finnemen (the
“Plaintiff”) initiated this civil action against Judge Daniel A.
Bernardin, Prosecutor Timothy Higgins, John A. Tonelli, and
Rocco A. Depersia (collectively, the “Defendants”).
1.]
[Dkt. No.
In so bringing this action, Plaintiff also seeks leave to
proceed without prepayment of fees and has submitted the
necessary application establishing that he lacks the financial
ability to pay the filing fee. [Dkt. No. 1-2.] Based upon
Plaintiff’s affidavit of indigence, this Court will grant his
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
1
I.
Background
Plaintiff alleges that on May 31, 2013, he filed charges
against Sheriff Jonathan Yoder at the Camden Municipal Court for
“simple assaulting me at the Superior Court Hall of Justice.”
(Compl. at 2.)
The prosecutor tasked with bringing the charges
was Timothy J. Higgins.
(Id.)
Mr. Yoder was represented by Mr.
Depersia, who is also a Defendant.
(Id.)
Judge Daniel A.
Bernardin found Mr. Yoder not guilty of assaulting Plaintiff.
(Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that Judge Bernardin “was in Attorney
Rocco A. Depersia and Jonathan Yoder favor on [October 8, 2013
by] not being fair[,] taking sides and finding [Mr. Yoder] not
guilty for what he did to me . . . .”
(Id.)
These are the
entirety of Plaintiff’s allegations.
II.
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
(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
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
This Court will direct the filing of this Complaint, but
will dismiss it without prejudice pursuant to screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
As Plaintiff has on previous occasions,
including in another Complaint also filed on November 30, 2015,
he is impermissibly asking this Court to sit as an appellate
court for proceedings in state court.
See Tammera v. Grossman,
No. 10-569, 2010 WL 1372406, at *4 (D.N.J. 2010); see also Lance
v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006) (“[U]nder what has come to
be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts
are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final
state-court judgments.”); Mem. Op. and Order, Finnemen v.
3
McCrink, Civ. No. 15-5795 (RMB/JS) (“Regarding Plaintiff’s
allegations against Judge McCrink and Judge Wells, Plaintiff’s
claims against both judges appear to be based on purported
errors committed by the New Jersey State Courts during his
conviction and appeals.
As such, these claims are precluded by
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, barring district review of final
state court judgments.”).
As such, Plaintiff’s claims against
Judge Bernardin shall not proceed.
To the extent Plaintiff states a claim against Mr. Higgins
for anything, which the allegations do not even begin to do,
such a claim would be barred by prosecutorial immunity.
The
Supreme Court has “held that a prosecutor is absolutely immune
from damages under § 1983 for acts that are intimately
associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process . . .
.
Since Imbler, the Supreme Court has held that absolute
immunity applies when a prosecutor prepares to initiate a
judicial proceeding . . . .”
Reeves v. Hodgson, Civ. A. No. 14-
4510 (MAS), 2014 WL 6895587, at *4 n.1 (D.N.J. Dec. 5, 2014)
(citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976)).
As
such, Plaintiff’s claims against Mr. Higgins shall not proceed.
The factual allegations against Mr. Depersia are simply
that he represented Mr. Yoder.
a claim.
These are insufficient to state
John A. Tonelli, based upon an exhibit attached to the
Complaint, appears to be a member of the Supreme Court of New
4
Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.
Mr. Tonelli
authored a letter in which it instructed Mr. Finnemen that the
committee found no basis for a charge of judicial misconduct
concerning Judge Bernardin.
[Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4.]
Such conduct
likewise does not state a claim.1
In light of the above analysis, Plaintiff’s allegations as
contained in his Complaint do not state a cause of action, and
the Complaint will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff
may seek to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of
the entry of the Order accompanying this Opinion remedying the
deficiencies outlined above.
DATED: April 12, 2016
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
The Court notes that Plaintiff has not stated any claims
against Mr. Yoder in regard to his conduct.
1
5
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?