SHAFFER v. POLICE DEPARTMENT OF SICKLERVILLE, NEW JERSEY, NARCOTIC DEPARTMENT
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/17/2016. (TH, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Commissioner of Police
Civil Action No. 16-5609(RMB)
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.)
(“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
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
Petitioner’s supplement to his Statement of Claims (ECF No.
described in this Court’s Memorandum and Order dated September
23, 2016. (ECF No. 3.) To state a claim against the Commissioner
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
violation; (2) the defendant-official was
unreasonable risk; (3) the defendant was
indifferent to that risk; and (4) the
constitutional injury was caused by the
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]
reversed on other grounds by Taylor v. Barkes, 135 S.Ct. 2042
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
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
deficient, how that deficiency caused the warrantless search and
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)).
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.
DATED: OCTOBER 17, 2016
s/RENÉE MARIE BUMB
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
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?