KIRKLAND BEY v. PENNSAUKEN MUNICIPAL COURT et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER that plaintiff's IFP application is granted, the court shall file the plaintiff's complaint; ORDERED that the plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice; ORDERED that Plaintiff may move to reopen her case within twenty days from the date of this Order; ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/9/2018. (rtm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ATIYA KIRKLAND BEY,
1:17-cv-9019 (NLH/LHG)
Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSAUKEN MUNICIPAL COURT,
STEVEN M. PETRILLO, DONNA M.
KENNEY, MERCHANTVILLE
MUNICIPAL COURT, OREN R.
THOMAS, III, MAUREEN F.
FINNEGAN, ROSMARY S. KELLY,
ALICIA D. HOFFMEYER, CAMDEN
MUNICIPAL COURT, PALMIRA
WHITE, TONYA STEWART,
CHRISTINE T.J. TUCKER, SHARON
EGGLESTON, ELISSA REDMER,
DONNA LEE VITALE, DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY, MELISSA IDLER,
JENNY ESPINAL, JENNIFER
DISANTIS, STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
LAW GUARDIAN, URIJAH SUAREZ,
EDEN FAYTHE FELD, LAUREN
PETTY, KELLY DONEGAN, PAUL
FITZPATRICK, EVESHAM
MUNICIPAL COURT, CHERYL
BEAUMONT, STACI HEAVNER,
CAMDEN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
LINDA W. ENYON, NALO BROWN,
MARY WIESEMAN, MARY EVA
COLALILLO, KAREN J. CAPLAN,
DAVID ANDERSON, DAVID GARNES,
RODERICK T. BALTIMORE,
TEOFILO MONTANEZ-SANTIAGO,
KELLY DONEGAN, IRIS MOORE,
CHRIS CHRISTIE, CAMDEN
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCERS,

MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

CAMDEN PARKING AUTHORITY,
STARR M. WATSON KIRKLAND,
EVESHAM TOWNSHIP CODE
ENFORCERS, WESTVILLE CODE
ENFORCERS, WOODLYNNE
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCERS,
KENNEDY HOSPITAL, ST. CECILIA
SCHOOL, PHILADELPHIA PARKING
AUTHORITY, DELAWARE VALLEY
PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION, FAMILY
PART, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW
JERSEY FOR THE DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY, CARISSA FERGUSONTHOMAS, MERYL E. UDELL,
TENICHA TOWNSEND-MOBLEY, DCFLO-CAMDEN NORTH, J. CLINE,
JOEL SCHNEIDER, ANN MARIE
DONIO, DEAN GIRARD NASSON,
BRADFORD GILL, ERICA G.
SMITH, G. QUINTANA, BRUCE
BULLOCK, DAWN BRANCH, LISA
VON PIER, JESSICA TROMBETTA,
CHARMAINE THOMAS, BRIAN C.
ROSS, CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO,
JAMES LOUIS, JOSEPH E.
KARKARA, LORRAINE M.
AUGUSTINI, CENTRALIZED
INFRACTIONS BUREAU, NEW
JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, STATE
OF NEW JERSEY, PENNSAUKEN
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCERS, and
NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE
COMMISSIONER,
Defendants.

2

APPEARANCES:
ATIYA KIRKLAND BEY
2268 41ST STREET
PENNSAUKEN, NJ 08110
Appearing pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS Plaintiff Atiya Kirkland Bey, appearing pro se,
filed a complaint on October 17, 2017, followed by a November
30, 2017 amended complaint, asserted against seventy-nine named
defendants; and
WHEREAS Plaintiff claims she was forced to have supervised
visitation with her son against her will and that she was pulled
over by “code enforcers” unlawfully and given parking tickets in
“violati[on of her] constitutional rights”; and
WHEREAS Plaintiff asks for “all records . . . corrected,
expunged and sealed,” “a copy of all [of her] records,” “a
formal written apology from” various individuals, “$1 billion
dollars” “[f]or all of [her] stress, defamation of character and
forced separation from [her] son,” and not to “be on the . . .
detain list”; and
WHEREAS Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed
without prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP”
application), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court
may allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of fees if he
submits a proper IFP application; and
3

WHEREAS, although § 1915 refers to “prisoners,” federal
courts apply § 1915 to non-prisoner IFP applications, Hickson v.
Mauro, No. 11-6304, 2011 WL 6001088, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 30,
2011) (citing Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312
(10th Cir. 2005)); Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312 (“Section 1915(a)
applies to all persons applying for IFP status, and not just to
prisoners.”); and
WHEREAS the screening provisions of the IFP statute require
a federal court to dismiss an action sua sponte if, among other
things, the action is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to
comply with the proper pleading standards, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452
(3d Cir. 2013); Martin v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No.
17-3129, 2017 WL 3783702, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2017) (“Federal
law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint for sua
sponte dismissal prior to service, and to dismiss any claim if
that claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any
defendant who is immune from suit.”); and
WHEREAS pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and
all reasonable latitude must be afforded the pro se litigant,
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), but pro se litigants
“must still plead the essential elements of [their] claim and
[are] not excused from conforming to the standard rules of civil
4

procedure,” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)
(“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary
civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes
by those who proceed without counsel.”); Sykes v. Blockbuster
Video, 205 F. App’x 961, 963 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding that pro se
plaintiffs are expected to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure); and
WHEREAS Plaintiff does not provide sufficient factual
allegations to support her claim that the Federal Constitution
and various statutes 1 were violated, see generally Baldwin Cty.
Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149-50 n.3 (1984)
(“Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a
claimant to set forth an intricately detailed description of the
asserted basis for relief, they do require that the pleadings
‘give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.’” (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957))); and
WHEREAS Plaintiff further does not plead the basis for any
liability for the majority of the named defendants; and
WHEREAS, for those named defendants Plaintiff does attempt

1

Plaintiff alleges the following are at issue: “Status,
Constitutional authority, federal jurisdiction, human rights,
rights of indigenous people, resolution 75, and Treaty of Peace
and Friendship 1786, 1787, 1836, The 5.1 Constitutional
Challenge.”
5

to plead liability, namely Melissa Idler, Jenny Espinal, Starr
Watson Kirkland, Linda Enyon, and the Pennsauken Municipal Code
Enforcers, Plaintiff’s vague, conclusory allegations fail to
satisfy the pleading standards required in civil actions by
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), see Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578
F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[A] complaint must do more than
allege the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief.

A complaint has

to ‘show’ such an entitlement with its facts.”); and
WHEREAS the Court therefore finds Plaintiff’s complaint is
deficient; and
THEREFORE,
IT IS HEREBY on this

9th

day of

March

, 2018

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ IFP application (Docket No. 3) is
hereby GRANTED, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to file
Plaintiff’s complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff may move to reopen her case within
twenty days from the date of this Order, attaching to any such
motion a proposed second amended complaint 2 which addresses the

2

When an amended complaint is filed, it supersedes the
original and renders it of no legal effect, unless the amended
complaint specifically refers to or adopts the earlier pleading.
See W. Run Student Housing Assocs., LLC v. Huntington Nat’l
6

deficiencies of the original complaint as described herein; and
it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mark this case
CLOSED.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

Bank, 712 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 6 Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476
(3d ed. 2008). To avoid confusion, the safer practice is to
submit an amended complaint that is complete in itself. Id.
7