FELTON v. ATLANTIC CITY TASK FORCE OFFICERS et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/10/17. (jbk, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
JAMES FELTON,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
ATLANTIC CITY TASK FORCE
:
OFFICERS in their official,
:
private and individual
:
capacities; JAMES HERBERT,
:
DARRIN LORADY, WILLIAM WARNER,:
and GARY STOWE,
:
:
Defendants.
:

Civ. Action No. 17-1471 (RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, District Judge:
Plaintiff

James

Felton,

a

pretrial

detainee

confined

in

Atlantic County Justice Facility (“ACJF”), in Atlantic City, New
Jersey, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
March 3, 2017.

(Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff seeks to proceed

without prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP”) under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
4.)

(IFP App., ECF No. 1-1, and ECF No. 1 at

Plaintiff has filed a properly completed IFP application,

establishing

his

financial

eligibility

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis, and his application will be granted.
The Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b) to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a

1 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
I. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Fed. R.

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state

a

Ashcroft

claim
v.

to

relief

Iqbal,

556

that

U.S.

is

plausible

662,

678

on

(2009)

its

(quoting

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
has

facial

plausibility

when

the

plaintiff

face.’”

pleads

Bell

“A claim
factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.)
“[A]

court

must

accept

contained in a complaint.”
conclusions

as

true.

as

Id.

Id.

true

all

of

the

allegations

A court need not accept legal

Legal

conclusions,

together

with

threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, do not
suffice to state a claim.

Id.

Thus, “a court considering a

motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings
that,

because

they

are

no

more

than

conclusions,

entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 679.

are

not

“While legal

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must
be supported by factual allegations.”
2 

Id.

If a complaint can

be remedied by an amendment, a district court may not dismiss
the complaint with prejudice, but must permit the amendment.
Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.
2002).

A court must liberally construe a pro se complaint.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges the following in his Complaint.
Deprivation of my Due Process and Equal
Protection rights guaranteed to me under the
Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution
through racist threats, intimidation and
coercion by these officers named in the
above complaint while acting under color of
state law and outside the bounds of their
authority in a malicious prosecution in
violation of the Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution.
(Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3, ¶IV.)
custody and money damages.
B.

Plaintiff seeks release from

(Id., ¶V.)

Section 1983 claims

A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983

for

certain

violations

of

his

constitutional

Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory ...
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and
3 

rights.

laws, shall be liable to the party injured
in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress.
Thus, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff
must allege, first, the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that the
alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting
under color of state law.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255–56 (3d
Cir. 1994).
1.

Municipal officers in their official capacities

Plaintiff sued the defendants, city task force officers,
under § 1983 in their official and individual capacities.

Local

government officials sued in their official capacities can be
sued

under

§

1983

unconstitutional
ordinance,

where

“the

implements

regulation,

or

action

or

that

executes

decision

a

is

alleged

policy

officially

to

be

statement,

adopted

and

promulgated by that body's officers” or if the constitutional
deprivations

were

the

result

of

a

governmental

“custom

even

though such a custom has not received formal approval through
the

body's

official

decisionmaking

channels.”

Monell

v.

Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658,
690-91 and n. 55 (1978).
Plaintiff

has

not

alleged

that

the

actions

of

the

defendants were pursuant to a police or custom of Atlantic City
4 

or its government officials.

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to

a state a Monell claim against Defendants in their official
capacities.

The claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

2.
To

state

Malicious Prosecution
a

§

1983

claim

for

malicious

prosecution

in

violation of the Fourth Amendment  against defendants in their
individual capacities, a plaintiff must allege facts showing:
(1) the defendants
proceeding;

initiated

(2) the criminal proceeding
plaintiff's favor;
(3) the proceeding
probable cause;

was

a

ended

initiated

criminal

in

the

without

(4) the defendants acted maliciously or for
a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff
to justice; and
(5) the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of
liberty consistent with the concept of
seizure
as
a
consequence
of
a
legal
proceeding.
DiBella v. Borough of Beachwood, 407 F.3d 599, 601 (3d Cir.
2005) (quoting Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 521 (3d
Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff failed to allege that the defendants initiated a
criminal proceeding against him without probable cause or that
the

criminal

Plaintiff

did

proceeding
not

ended

allege

in

how

his

each

favor.

individual

Additionally,
defendant

personally involved in the malicious prosecution.
5 

was

See Iqbal,

556 U.S. at 676 (“a plaintiff must plead that each Governmentofficial

defendant,

through

the

official's

actions, has violated the Constitution.”)

own

individual

Therefore, the Court

will dismiss the malicious prosecution claim without prejudice.
3.

Equal Protection Claim

Because his Complaint arises out of his arrest, the Court
construes Plaintiff’s equal protection claim as one of selective
enforcement.
To establish a selective-enforcement claim,
a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he was
treated differently from other similarly
situated individuals, and (2) “that this
selective
treatment
was
based
on
an
‘unjustifiable standard, such as race, or
religion, or some other arbitrary factor,
... or to prevent the exercise of a
fundamental
right.’”
Hill
v.
City
of
Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 125 (3d Cir.2005)
(quoting Holder v. City of Allentown, 987
F.2d 188, 197 (3d Cir.1993)).
Dique v. New Jersey State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 184 n.5 (3d Cir.
2010).
Here, Plaintiff has not described any similarly situated
individuals from whom he was treated differently on the basis of
race.

Therefore,

the

Court

will

dismiss

the

selective

enforcement claim without prejudice.
4.

Due Process Claim

“The Supreme Court has noted that, ‘[w]here a particular
Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional

6 

protection

against

a

particular

sort

of

government

behavior,

that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive
due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims.’”
Wheeler

v.

Wheeler,

639

F.

App’x

147,

151

(3d

Cir.

2016)

(quoting Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (internal
quotations

omitted)).

Therefore,

“redress

for

alleged

false

arrest or malicious prosecution ‘cannot be based on substantive
due

process

considerations,

but

instead

must

be

based

on

a

provision of the Bill of Rights’ such as the Fourth Amendment”
Id. (quoting Merkle v. Upper Dublin School Dist., 211 F.3d 782,
792 (3d Cir. 2000)).
Insofar as the Complaint might be construed to raise a
substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment,
the

Court

dismisses

the

claim

because

it

is

more

properly

brought as a false arrest or malicious prosecution claim under
the Fourth Amendment.
5.

NJCRA claim

Plaintiff
constitutional
coercion.

alleged
rights

These

federal claim.

Defendants
by

racist

allegations

are

violated

threats,

his

federal

intimidation

insufficient

to

a

and

state

a

Plaintiff, however, may have been trying to

assert a claim under the New Jersey Constitution.

N.J. Stat.

Ann. § 10:6–2(c) states that “a person may bring a civil action
under the [NJCRA] in two circumstances: (1) when he's deprived
7 

of

a

right,

or

(2)

when

his

rights

are

threats, intimidation, coercion or force.”

interfered

with

by

See Felicioni v.

Admin. Office of Courts, 404 N.J.Super. 382, 400 (N.J. Super.
Ct. App. Div. 2008).

Although Plaintiff uses the language of

the New Jersey statute, his claim is conclusory because he does
not allege which of his rights was interfered with and what
threats, intimidation or coercion was used against him or by
whom.

Therefore,

this

claim

will

be

dismissed

without

prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
For

the

reasons

discussed

above,

the

Court

grants

Plaintiff’s IFP application but dismisses the Complaint without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted,

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§§

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

1915A(b)(1).
An appropriate order follows.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Dated: April 10, 2017

8