JONES v. OWENS et al

Filing 18

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 9/25/2018. (rtm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DAVID T. JONES,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 17-2634 (JBS-JS)

v.
DAVID S. OWENS; KAREN TAYLOR,

OPINION
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
David T. Jones, Plaintiff Pro Se
4306915
Camden County Correctional Facility
PO Box 90431
Camden, New Jersey 08101
CHRISTOPHER A. ORLANDO, COUNTY COUNSEL
BY: Stephanie C. Madden, Assistant County Counsel
520 Market Street, 14th Floor Court House
Camden, New Jersey 08102-1375
Attorneys for Defendants David S. Owens and Karen Taylor
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff David Jones
(“Plaintiff”) to amend his civil rights complaint and
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Motion to Amend,
Docket Entry 11; Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry 12. The motions
are opposed. Defendants’ Opposition, Docket Entry 16;

Plaintiff’s Opposition, 13. The Court is deciding the motions on
the papers. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion to amend is
denied, and the motion to dismiss is granted. The complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his civil rights action against David Owens

and Karen Taylor, the Director and the Warden of the Camden
County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), respectively. Plaintiff
alleged Owens and Taylor permitted him to be admitted into the
facility without a signed warrant and for failing to release him
when he brought the lack of a warrant to their attention.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff entered the CCCF on
April 21, 2015 on a warrant that was not signed by a judicial
officer. He filed a grievance with Owens about the lack of a
signed warrant but did not receive a response. Complaint, Docket
Entry 1 at 5. He also spoke with Warden Taylor in February 2016.
Id. at 6. According to the Complaint, she responded that “the
County had other paperwork” to process Plaintiff’s admission
into CCCF, and Plaintiff countered it was “facility policy to
have a warrant . . . .” Id. at 7. Plaintiff requested a copy of
the warrant from the Admissions Office, but they only had the
“defendant copy” of the warrant. Id. at 6. Plaintiff continued
to request a signed copy of the warrant from various CCCF
2

officials. Eventually, Captain Franceschini went to the
prosecutor’s office to get a signed warrant. He returned with a
warrant signed by a judicial officer dated April 20, 2015. Id.
See also Exhibits Two and Three. Concluding that an answer from
defendants was warranted in light of the conflicting warrants,
the Court permitted the complaint to proceed past its initial
screening on October 30, 2017.
On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his
complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add false arrest claims against
the officers who arrested him without going before the judge or
having an arrest warrant. Defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint on January 29, 2018, arguing that New Jersey law does
not permit a prisoner to be released based on a technical defect
in a warrant unless his or her rights have been prejudiced.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits
a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course twentyone (21) days after serving the pleading or twenty-one (21) days
“after a responsive pleading or service of a motion under Rule
12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1)(A)-(B). 11. Plaintiff filed his motion to amend before
Defendants filed their responsive pleading, but the Court must
still review the proposed amended complaint by pre-screening

3

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as Plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis.
A court may deny leave to amend a pleading where it court
finds: (1) undue delay; (2) undue prejudice to the non-moving
party; (3) bad faith or dilatory motive; or (4) futility of
amendment. Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000).
“‘Futility' means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Id. The Court
applies the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under
Rule 12(b)(6). “The court should freely give leave when justice
so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court
must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as
true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. A motion to dismiss may be granted only if the plaintiff
has failed to set forth fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests that make such a claim plausible on
its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Although Rule 8 does not require “detailed factual allegations,”
it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

4

In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must
“tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state
a claim. Second, it should identify allegations that, because
they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth. Finally, [w]hen there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity
and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief.” Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d
780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (alterations in original) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
IV. ANALYSIS
Incorporating his original complaint against Owens and
Taylor, Plaintiff seeks to add claims against Detective Thomas
Collins, Detective Martinez, and Detective Brian Razzi for an
unconstitutional arrest. He alleges that Detective Collins
failed to get a judicial officer to approve the arrest warrant.
Motion to Amend at 4. Plaintiff further alleges Detectives
Martinez and Razzi then arrested him on April 21, 2015 on the
basis of a “wanted flyer” instead of an arrest warrant that had
been properly signed by a judicial officer. Id. at 6.
“The Fourth Amendment protects ‘[t]he right of the people
to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . .
seizures.’” Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 917
(2017) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. IV) (alteration and omissions
5

in original). “To state a claim for false arrest under the
Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that there was
an arrest; and (2) that the arrest was made without probable
cause.” James v. City of Wilkes–Barre, 700 F.3d 675, 680 (3d
Cir. 2012). “[W]here the police lack probable cause to make an
arrest, the arrestee has a claim under § 1983 for false
imprisonment based on a detention pursuant to that arrest.”
O'Connor v. City of Phila., 233 F. App’x 161, 164 (3d Cir. 2007)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff did not include the date of his arrest in his
original complaint; he only stated that he entered CCCF on April
21, 2015. Complaint at 5. In his proposed amended complaint, he
clarifies that April 21, 2015 was also the date Detectives
Martinez and Ricci arrested him. Motion to Amend at 6. According
to the documents provided by Plaintiff, a judicial officer
signed the arrest warrant on April 20, 2015. Complaint-Warrant,
Docket Entry 11-3 at 12. Therefore, a judicial officer had
signed the arrest warrant prior to Plaintiff’s arrest on April
21, 2015. Moreover, the statement of probable cause that
Plaintiff submitted with his proposed amended complaint sets out
sufficient facts to support probable cause for Plaintiff’s
arrest.1 Statement of Probable Cause, Docket Entry 11-3 at 7.

1

Plaintiff does not dispute the accuracy of the facts stated in
the probable cause statement and in fact relies on its accuracy
6

Based on all of the documents submitted by Plaintiff, he has
failed to state a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment.
His motion to amend is denied as futile, and Defendants’ motion
to dismiss is granted for failure to state a claim.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, “dismissal without leave to amend is
justified only on the grounds of bad faith, undue delay,
prejudice, or futility.” Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 117 (3d
Cir. 2000). It is not clear that it would be entirely futile to
permit a curative amendment; therefore, Plaintiff may move to
amend his complaint within 30 days of this opinion and order.
Any motion to amend must include a proposed second amended
complaint. Failure to submit a motion to amend within the
timeframe set by the Court will convert the dismissal without
prejudice into a dismissal with prejudice without further action
by this Court.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to amend

is denied. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. The
complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

to show that Detective Collins did not go before a judicial
officer. Statement of Probable Cause at 7. In the event
Plaintiff does dispute the accuracy of the events depicted in
the affidavit of probable cause, he may move to amend his
complaint.
7

An appropriate order follows.

September 25, 2018
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge

8