BRITTON v. CITY OF ATLANTIC et al
Filing
4
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/16/2018. (rtm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LONNIE BRITTON,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 17-1986 (JBS-JS)
v.
CITY OF ATLANTIC, et al.,
OPINION
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
LONNIE BRITTON, Plaintiff pro se
#195887C/1029078
South Woods State Prison
215 South Burlington Road
Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302
SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge:
1.
Plaintiff Lonnie Britton, a convicted and sentenced
state prisoner currently confined at South Woods State Prison
(“SWSP”) seeks to bring a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated September 9, 2017, this Court
granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis and
directed the Clerk to file the complaint. Docket Entry 3.
2.
Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-
134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996)
(“PLRA”), district courts must review complaints in those civil
actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress against a governmental
employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim
with respect to prison conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
3.
The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss
any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
4.
This action is subject to sua sponte screening for
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A because
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and is
seeking redress against a governmental entity.
5.
In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint,
the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of
the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007)
(following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also
United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992).
6.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, “a pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.’” 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
7.
To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a
claim,1 the complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to
1
“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the
2
show that the claim is facially plausible. Warren Gen. Hosp. v.
Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
8.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764
F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678).
9.
Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally
construed, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts
in their complaints to support a claim.”
Mala v. Crown Bay
Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted) (emphasis added).
10.
A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights.
11.
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 laws, shall be liable to the party
same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x
120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d
220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F. App’x 230,
232 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1));
Courteau v. United States, 287 F. App’x. 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2008)
(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
3
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress ....
42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d
Cir. 2011); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56 (3d
Cir. 1994).
12.
Plaintiff’s complaint and exhibits spans over 500
pages and 5 envelopes. The Court ordered the Clerk’s Office to
create a separate proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as portions
of the received documents indicated Plaintiff wished to file a
“protective petition” under Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408
(2005). See Order, Docket Entry 2. That § 2254 proceeding has
been opened at Civil No. 17-3701, and will be addressed
separately.
13.
The portion of the submission appearing to be
Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint is unintelligible, and the
Court is unable to discern what claims Plaintiff is attempting
to bring in his civil rights action.
14.
For example, Plaintiff alleges “[b]oth the complaint
and information used on administrative directive forms modified
4
to include provisions of injunctive or other relief as evidence
to support the true bill signed with actual knowledge, is shown
to specifically invoke the Jurisdiction of the ‘admiralty side’
of the Court, so as to ensure that the action does not proceed
on the ‘law side’ if the common law is competent to supply an In
Personam ‘remedy’ in the processing of the particular case.”
Complaint ¶ 10.
15.
In his legal claims section, Plaintiff states “[t]he
faith of the United States government is pledged to pay in legal
tender, principal and interest on the obligations of the
government.” Legal Claims ¶ 1. “Every provision contained in or
made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the
oblige [sic] a right to require payment in gold or a particular
kind or coin or currency or in an amount of money of the United
States thereby is declared to be against public policy.” Id. ¶
2.
16.
He claims to have been “deprived of ‘Remedy’ as a
right to have the security interest accumulated and trust funds
held for beneficial owner, from the original transaction . . .
charged to my account as a negative claim adjusted for valuable
consideration in return for post-settlement and closure of
credit simulated from the assumed power of attorney to endorse
negotiable instruments.” Id. ¶ 3.
5
17.
As relief, he seeks “release of the lien on ‘real and
personal property held in escrow. . . .’” Relief ¶ 1 (emphasis
in original). These typical excerpts from Plaintiff’s complaint
in ¶¶ 14-16 above are incomprehensible and frivolous. They
consist of jargon, stirred into a pot of vitriol, to yield an
abysmal stew of unknowable contents.
18.
The best the Court is able to discern is that
Plaintiff is attempting to challenge various aspects of his
state court criminal proceedings based on his allegations of
ineffective assistance of counsel and various rulings by the
trial court, but even these allegations are vague, ambiguous,
generally incomprehensible, and lacking in factual support.2
19.
Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with “Rules 8(a)
and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules
require that the complaint be simple, concise, direct and set
forth ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.’” El Ameen Bey v. Stumpf, 825 F.
2
By way of further example, Plaintiff’s claim that the “deputy
court administrator . . . willfully caused to be undermined
through the personal direction and use of complimentary dispute
resolution forms or administrative directives, the procedural
guarantees for finding probable cause from a patently defective
warrant to certify that this complaint was signed in her
presence and that she had administered an oath to detective
Stephen V. Rando” is both incomprehensible and lacking in
factual support for Plaintiff’s allegation that the complaintwarrant was “patently defective.” Complaint ¶ 17; see also
Complaint-Warrant, Docket Entry 1-6 at 15.
6
Supp. 2d 537, 557 (D.N.J. 2011) (emphasis in original) (quoting
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and
Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993)).
20.
The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice
for failure to state a claim, but will give Plaintiff one
opportunity to seek leave to amend his complaint within 30 days
of this Opinion and Order. Any motion to amend must include a
proposed amended complaint which shall be subject to screening
by this Court.
21.
If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he should
note that he may not “recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm
caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction
or sentence invalid,” unless he has first shown “that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus[.]” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
22.
Any claims that do not necessarily call into question
the validity of any conviction may be raised in an amended
complaint.
23.
Plaintiff should also note that the Court may not
order Plaintiff’s release from custody in a civil rights action.
7
That form of relief is exclusive to habeas corpus actions. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
24.
Finally, the Court urges Plaintiff to state his
allegations in a short, plain matter without resorting to
“pointless rhetoric, senselessly-picked Latin terms, irrelevant
constitutional excerpts, etc.” El Ameen Bey, 825 F. Supp. 2d at
557. See also Britton v. New Jersey, No. 15-3933, 2015 WL
4770915, at *5 n.5 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2015) (discussing prior
dismissal of plaintiff’s “patently frivolous allegations
regarding ‘admiralty/maritime jurisdiction’”).
25.
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is
dismissed without prejudice. An accompanying Order will be
entered.
26.
If no motion to amend the complaint is filed within
thirty (30) days of the entry of this Opinion and Order upon the
docket, then the Complaint will be deemed dismissed with
prejudice as to the matters complained of therein (other than
Plaintiff’s § 2254 petition to set aside his conviction, as
noted above, which is no longer part of this docket).
April 16, 2018
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge
8
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?