TAYLOR v. UNION COUNTY et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM & OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 1/29/16. (cm )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MICHAEL TAYLOR,
Civil Action No. 02-08 12 (CCC)
Plaintiff,
v.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

UNION COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,

Defendant.

CECCHI, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Complaint of pro se Plaintiff Michael Taylor
(“Plaintiff’), brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, asserting Defendant has violated his

constitutional rights. The Court previously dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, but allowed Plaintiff thirty days to amend, but only to add
additional defendant(s) since Plaintiff only asserted claims against a party not actionable under

§ 1983.

(See ECF No. 40 at 5.) The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. (See

ECF No. 42.) As Plaintiff has been granted informapauperis status, per 28 U.S.C.
Court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that.. the action.
.

§
.

.

1915(e), the

fails to state

a claim on which relief may be granted.” It appearing:
1. Although the Court allowed Plaintiff to amend the Complaint only to raise claims against
a proper party, nevertheless the Amended Complaint raises claims that are wholly unrelated to the
original Complaint.

The original Complaint raised claims regarding (1) conditions of

confinement; (2) lack of wages for work performed while in prison; and (3) lack of newspapers in
prison. (See ECF No. 25 at 1.)
2. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seems to have abandoned the conditions of
confinement claim, but continues to assert the lack of wages and newspaper claims. (See ECF No.
42 at 2-3.) In addition, Plaintiff raises other claims regarding certain criminal sentencing that
occurred on April 8, 2004. (Id. at 3.) Since the original Complaint was filed on February 25, 2002,
these new claims clearly did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claims made
in the original Complaint. As such, the new claims are above and beyond the scope of amendment
that was allowed by this Court in its previous order and, therefore, will not be accepted by this
Court. See UF.C. WLocal S6Health & Welfare fund v. ID. ‘s Mkt., 240 F.R.D. 149, 154 (D.N.J.
2007) (finding amendments that exceeded the scope of amendment allowed by the court may be
stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) for failure to obtain leave to amend); Heltauer
v. NAFCO Holding Co., LLC, No. 97-4423, 1998 WL 472453, at *3..4 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 1998)
(same).
3. As to the wage and newspaper claims, in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts these
claims against two new entities, Union County and Dow Jones & Co., as permitted by the Court’s
prior grant for leave to amend. With regard to the County, in order to hold a municipality liable,
the plaintiff must identify an official custom or policy that caused a constitutional deprivation.
Caldwell v. Egg Harbor Police Dep’t, 362 Fed. App’x 250, 25 1-52 (3d Cir. 2010).

“[A]

municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor—or, in other words, a
municipality cannot be held liable under

§ 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Id. at 251

(quoting lionell v. Dep ‘t ofSoc. Servs. ofthe City ofNY, et al., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Here,
Plaintiff does not identify any specific policy or custom that caused the alleged deprivations.

2

4. With regard to claims against Dow Jones & Co., “[b]efore private persons can be
considered state actors for purposes of section 1983, the state must significantly contribute to the
constitutional deprivation, e.g., authorizing its own officers to invoke the force of law in aid of the
private persons’ request.” Angetico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 184 F.3d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1999).
Here, Plaintiff makes no such allegations against Dow Jones.’
5. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted. Plaintiff has thirty days to file a second amended
complaint.

If Plaintiff does not timely file a second amended complaint this action will be

dismissed with prejudice.

Ctaire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.

Dated:

T’

°

In Count Six of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff “demands that a writ of mandamus be
issued to compel Dow Jones to perform the discretionary duty of publishing an article within the
Wall Street Journal concerning Plaintiffs proposed self-underwritten initial public offering of
stock securities.” (ECF No. 42 at 5.) The Court cannot not see the relevance of this demand to
any of the causes of action that Plaintiff seeks to assert, nor does Plaintiff provide any legal basis
regarding the Court’s authority or jurisdiction to issue such writ. As such, the Court finds Count
Six meritless.
3