MADRIGAL v. ZUNIGA et al

Filing 10

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/23/2017. (tf, n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
CELSO LAREDO MADRIGAL,

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

Plaintiff,
v.

LETICIA ZUNIGA, ESQ. and
J. DAVID ALCANTRA, ESQ.,
Defendants.

Civ. Action No. 16-9415 (RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, District Judge:
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff

Celso

Laredo

Madrigal,

a

prisoner

confined

in

South Woods State Prison, in Bridgeton, New Jersey, filed a
civil rights action on December 21, 2016, without paying the
filing

fee

or

submitting

a

complete

application

to

proceed

without prepayment of fees (“IFP application”) under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a).

(Compl., ECF No. 1.)

The Court terminated the action,

subject to reopening if Petitioner submitted either the filing
fee

or

a

properly

completed

Order, ECF Nos. 3, 4.)
complaint

under

28

IFP

application.

(Opinion

and

Furthermore, the Court pre-screened the

U.S.C.

§

1915(e)(2)(B)

and

found

that

Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable § 1983 claim, and the
Court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim to enforce an
1 

arbitration award.
reopen

this

application,

(Id.)

matter
and

upon

The Court permitted Plaintiff to
filing

further

a

permitted

properly
him

to

completed

file

an

IFP

amended

complaint if he could cure the jurisdictional defect in the
original complaint.
II.

(Id.)

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has filed a properly completed IFP application,

which establishes his eligibility to proceed without prepayment
of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (IFP App., ECF No. 9).

The

Court grants Petitioner’s IFP application.
Petitioner,

however,

has

not

filed

an

amended

complaint

that cures the jurisdictional defect in the complaint he filed
on December 21, 2016.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

and 1915A, the Court must dismiss the case 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.
The

Court

now

adopts

and

incorporates

by

reference

the

March 22, 2017 Opinion as the conclusive screening opinion under
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
dismissed
“state

with

actors”

prejudice
under

42

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are

because
U.S.C.

§

defense

attorneys

are

1983.

Newton

City

v.

not
of

Wilmington, 676 F. App’x 106, (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Polk County
v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (public defenders are not
2 

state actors); Steward v. Meeker, 459 F.2d 669, 670 (3d Cir.
1972) (per curiam) (privately-retained defense counsel is not a
state actor)).
The Court also lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim
for enforcement of an arbitration decision by the New Jersey Fee
Arbitration Committee because the Federal Arbitration Act does
not create independent federal question jurisdiction.

Goldman

v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 834 F.3d 242, 250 (3d Cir.
2016) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., v. Mercury Constr.
Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n. 32 (1983).

Furthermore, there does not

appear to be diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and
defendants, and the amount in controversy is not met.

See 28

U.S.C. § 1332.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP application and dismisses
the Complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1983, and
lack

of

jurisdiction

over

Plaintiff’s

claim

to

enforce

arbitration award.
An appropriate order follows.
Dated:

October 23, 2017
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

3 

an