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, )

Download PDF
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

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?