DALEY v. EGG HARBOR CITY et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/21/18. (dd )n.m.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KARE M. DALEY,
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
v.
EGG HARBOR CITY, EGG HARBOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT and STEVEN
HADLEY,
Civil Action No.
16-2654 (JBS/AMD)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff pro se Kare M. Daley (“Plaintiff”) filed this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging that he was falsely arrested and
defamed by Defendants. Since Plaintiff seeks to bring this
action in forma pauperis, the Court has an obligation to screen
the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court finds as
follows:
1.
Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint with an
application to proceed in forma paupuris. [Docket Item 1.]
Because Plaintiff’s application disclosed that he was indigent,
the Court permitted the Complaint to be filed without prepayment
of fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and ordered the Clerk of
Court to file the Complaint. [Docket Item 2.]
2.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to screen the
Complaint and to dismiss any claim that is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The Court
also has “a continuing obligation to assess its subject matter
jurisdiction” and may “dismiss a suit sua sponte for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction at any stage in the proceeding.”
Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d
Cir. 2010). The Court draws the facts of this case from the
Complaint and, for the purposes of this screening, accepts the
factual allegations as true.
3.
The facts alleged in the Complaint can be summarized
as follows. Plaintiff is an inmate at the Atlantic County
Justice Facility in Mays Landing, New Jersey. [Docket Item 1 at
2.] In January 2011 and January 2012, he was arrested by Officer
Steven Hadley for possession of a controlled dangerous substance
(“CDS”) and an open container of alcohol, which Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Hadley, an Officer in the Egg Harbor City
Police Department, had “placed” inside Plaintiff’s vehicle. [Id.
at 3.] According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was also arrested
by Defendant Hadley on October 24, 2012 with N.J.S.A. § 2C:355A(1), Third Degree Manufacture/Distribution of CDS. [Id.] With
respect to the latter arrest, Plaintiff alleges “I absolutely
was not the person to sell anything to [the] undercover
officer[.] These allegation[s] were false [and] illegal!” [Id.]
2
4.
Plaintiff also alleges that, in 2013, Defendant Hadley
“propositioned [Plaintiff] to have ‘sex’ with him and when
[Plaintiff] refused[,] he came to [Plaintiff’s] job at Home Dept
and screamed down the aisles ‘Mr. Daley do you still sell
drugs!” [Id.] According to the Complaint, this caused Plaintiff
to get fired from his job. [Id.] As relief, Plaintiff requests
compensatory damages of $245,000. [Id. at 4.]
5.
The Court infers that Plaintiff is attempting to raise
a false arrest claim under the Fourth Amendment against all
Defendants and a state law claim of defamation against Defendant
Hadley. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the
Complaint fails to state a claim with respect to either cause of
action.
6.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that, to the
extent Plaintiff has been convicted of the charges for which he
was arrested, he cannot seek damages under § 1983 if this
Court's adjudication would call into question the validity of
his criminal conviction, unless his conviction first has been
overturned on appeal or in state or federal collateral
proceedings. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
The Complaint, however, does not allege whether he was convicted
in connection with his 2011-2012 arrest.
7.
More importantly, because the arrests referenced in
the Complaint apparently occurred in 2011 and 2012, Plaintiff’s
3
false arrest claims are barred by the relevant statute of
limitations. This fact is plain from the Complaint itself. Civil
rights claims under § 1983 are governed by New Jersey's
limitations period for personal injury and must be brought
within two years of the claim's accrual. See Wilson v. Garcia,
471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Dique v. New Jersey State Police, 603
F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010). “Claims for false arrest . . .
typically accrue on the date of the arrest . . . because, at
that point, the plaintiff has reason to know of the injury.”
Ostuni v. Wa Wa's Mart, 532 F. App’x 110, 112 (3d Cir. 2013)
(per curiam) (citing Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120, 126
(3d Cir. 1998)). Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 24,
2016. [Docket Item 1 at 4.] Thus, Plaintiff’s false arrest
claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations because
all of his arrests occurred well before April 24, 2014 (i.e.,
two years before the Complaint was filed).
8.
Plaintiff’s defamation claim is also barred by the
relevant statute of limitations, as New Jersey law requires
all defamation claims to be brought “within 1 year next after
the publication of the alleged libel or slander.” N.J. Stat.
Ann. § 2A:14–3. Again, Plaintiff filed this Complaint on April
24, 2016. [Docket Item 1 at 4.] According to the Complaint,
Defendant Hadley’s allegedly defamatory statements at
Plaintiff’s place of employment were made sometime in 2013.
4
Thus, Plaintiff’s defamation claim is also barred by the
relevant statute of limitations, which expired in 2014.
9.
In sum, and for the foregoing reasons, the Complaint
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). Because amendment would be futile, as the
relevant statutes of limitations barred all of Plaintiff’s
claims before this Complaint was filed, dismissal will be with
prejudice. An accompanying Order shall be entered.
11/21/2018
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge
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?