SHAFFER v. POLICE DEPARTMENT OF SICKLERVILLE, NEW JERSEY, NARCOTIC DEPARTMENT

Filing 5

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/17/2016. (TH, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

Michael Shaffer,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sicklerville Police
Department, and
Commissioner of Police
Department, Sicklerville,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 16-5609(RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, United States District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s filing
of an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and submission
of an addendum to the Statement of Claims (ECF No. 4) for his
civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1) filed on September 15, 2016.
Plaintiff is a state inmate confined at Bayside State Prison, in
Leesburg, New Jersey. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶4-5.)
Plaintiff’s

application

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A is complete and
establishes his inability to prepay the filing fee. (IFP App.,
ECF No. 4.) Leave to proceed in this Court without prepayment of

fees

is

authorized,

and

the

Court

will

grant

the

IFP

application.
I.

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b), 1915A
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A, the Court must

review a prisoner’s civil complaint and dismiss the action if it
finds that the action is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.
Petitioner’s supplement to his Statement of Claims (ECF No.
4

at

4)

does

not

cure

the

deficiencies

in

the

Complaint

described in this Court’s Memorandum and Order dated September
23, 2016. (ECF No. 3.) To state a claim against the Commissioner
of

the

Sicklerville

Police

Department

for

liability

as

a

supervisor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must:
identify a supervisory policy or practice
that the supervisor failed to employ, and
then [plead facts showing] that: (1) the
policy or procedures in effect at the time
of
the
alleged
injury
created
an
unreasonable
risk
of
a
constitutional
violation; (2) the defendant-official was
aware
that
the
policy
created
an
unreasonable risk; (3) the defendant was
indifferent to that risk; and (4) the
constitutional injury was caused by the
failure
to
implement
the
supervisory
practice or procedure.
Barkes v. First Corr. Medical, Inc., 766 F.3d 307, (quoting
Sample v. Dieckes, 885 F.2d 1099, 1116 (3d Cir. 1989) [Barkes]
2

reversed on other grounds by Taylor v. Barkes, 135 S.Ct. 2042
(2015).
Plaintiff’s

Complaint

falls

short

because

it

does

not

identify the policy or procedure that created an unreasonable
risk of a constitutional violation nor does explain how the
Commissioner was aware of but indifferent to that policy or
procedure,

or

that

the

injury

was

caused

by

the

failure

to

implement a particular supervisory practice or procedure.
Petitioner has also failed to plead sufficient facts for
the Commissioner’s liability for failure to train, including the
Commissioner’s personal involvement in training the officers who
committed

the

alleged

misconduct,

how

the

training

was

deficient, how that deficiency caused the warrantless search and
seizure

to

occur,

and

facts

supporting

the

Commissioner’s

deliberate indifference. See Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 181
F.3d 339, 356 (1999)(quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S.
378, 388 (1989)).
II.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons discussed above and the reasons described

in this Court’s Memorandum and Order of September 23, 2016 (ECF
No. 3), incorporated by reference herein, the Court will dismiss
the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.

3

DATED: OCTOBER 17, 2016

s/RENÉE MARIE BUMB
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

4