GATSON et al v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 6

OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 11/02/2009. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DANIEL GATSON,

et al., Civil Action No. P Ia ± n t ± ffs, 09--1658 (SRC)

OPINION STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et aT.,

Defendants.

APPEARANCES: DANIEL GATSON, Plaintiff #PN438674/75039 Northern State Prison se

P.O. Box 2300 Newark, New Jersey 07114 ANTHONY RANKS, Plaintiff pro se 478 Park Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11205
CHESLER,

District Judge Daniel Gatson, a convicted state prisoner New

Plaintiffs,

currently confined at the Northern State Prison in Newark, Jersey , and Anthony Hanks, New York, residing at 47$ Park Avenue in

Brooklyn,

seek to bring this action

forma pauperis. Based on

Both Plaintifis provide affidavits of indigency. Plaintiffs' affidavits of indigency,

and the absence of three § 1915(g) with respect to

qualifying dismissals within 28 U.S.C. plaintiff Daniel Gatson,

the Court will grant both Plaintiffs' ("IFP") pursuant to 28

applications to proceed in forma pauperis

U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)

(1998)

and order the Clerk of the Court to file

the Complaint. At this time, to 28 U.S.C. the Court must review the Complaint, and 1915A, pursuant

§5 1915(e) (2)

to determine whether it for failure to or because it

should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes

that the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. I. Plaintiffs, ("Ranks")
,

BACKGROUND ("Gatson"), and Anthony Hanks

Daniel Gatson

bring this civil action against the following State of New Jersey; Anne Milgram, Somerset County, New Jersey; New Jersey Office of the

defendants:

Attorney General;

Somerset County Prosecutors; Murphy, Assistant Prosecutor;

Wayne Forrest,

Prosecutor; Matthew Shea;

Detective Christopher J.

Captain Thomas Dunne; Richard Ike; Leffert;

Captain Ronald Thornburg; Bryant, Jr.;

Lieutenant Russell W. Wenzel; Brian

Detective Robert L.

Sgt.

Warren Township,

New Jersey;

Sgt.

Timothy J.

Norris County, Newman;

New Jersey; Watchung Borough,
New Jersey;

New Jersey;

Bergen County,

Office of the Bergen County John W. Donohue, Thomas

Prosecutor;

John Molinelli,

Prosecutor;

Assistant Prosecutor; Czulada;

Wayne Mello,

Assistant Prosecutor;

Parsippany Township,

New Jersey;

Troy Hills Township,

it Hi
Di

o
`a
Cr'
`

Di

0 Hi
fr'Di fr-' P'

Z o
Di H CD
ft ct Di

rP

HH CD

a
ft 0 H0 Z
Cf H HDi
·

`0 CD H cc 0 Z Di H Z Hi H fr C) Z' CD C) 0
ft 4 C. Ci) Z ct cc

C) ft H0 Z

Di C) C) CD `0 Z CD CD Z Q. CD Hi CD
-.

Hi HH CD fl 0 C Z Z CD S Di Z C HC H H`< Z 0 Z CD 5
·

5 CD Z a S CD Z
Di H CD a 4 C Co
·

H Di Z ft
I-'-

it

Di r CD Z a Di Z ft

Z

Di H H CD C CD H CD
ft Hft ft H

`C CD

a H
C H Z C Z' Z C 4 0' H
fri-

0 Hi
HH-

C) 0 Z cc ft
H CD C Hi 0 H Hi H 0 C)
ft
·

Hi fr'Z a HZ C cc C `0 CD H H0 H

cc
Z CD
Z 0

CD H CO CD `C

`0 H 0 `0 CD H

`0 H `00 H C) Di CD fricc cc Z ft HHi Z Hi CD cc C

S
·

Z o

cc
S
C 0 Hi

`C
fr-

Z I C)
Di B CD

CD Z C)

Di H H ft 0

HC CD

ft C ft CD

cc
ft 0 ft Z CD ft CD

cc
Z Z'
CD cc ft Z' CD 0 Hi

Hi Hi Di cc t C H `0 0

5

C) 0 C H ft

"3 H Di Z
H

H-

Z

c'

cc
Z

H 0 C at Di HZ . Di Di HCj Z 5 0 ft 0 ft Z HZ 0 C) Z Di 0 `0 0 ft ft CD 0 Hcc 0 Di Z C4 CD H cc CD `C
.

5

C) :i Di CD H

o
·

C CD CD
.

ft H-

. Di

0 Z CD `C ft Di ft Z a

0 ft H0 Z Di H ft Z' CD
ft

`0 H Di HZ ft Z Hcc CD S
C-j

Z ft H Di 0' Di Z a

cc
C Di 0 Hi

cc cc C)
ft Z CD

Di Z a

cc
0 Hi Di

a HHHi Hi ft Z Hcc

0 H Di ft H0 Z cc

Z 0'
H CD
`

0 H Di

a
CD

CD Z

a
ft Z' HH
p4

Di Z

fr-'

I

Z CD
0

CD 0. Id

H

t HDi Z
CD

ft 0 H ft cc Di n ft H0 Z
·

4 CD H Di C) Hft `C

C) 0 S `0 H Di HZ ft
Di Z

t-' `a I w CD

CD

t' Di cc Di 0' Di
t0

Cd
`·

S
0 Hi

CD

ft H CD cc cc ft Z' CD HH ft H0 Z

cc

a
Z' CD

CD H cc CD `C

H ft Z' C H Z
·

C) 0

z -" a H
S
Di Z a 0
H
·

Di Z a H Di Di Z a D' it C) `0 H Di Hft

H

0 Z CD `C Di H CD a CD Hi

0' o Di ft Hi H 0 ft

S
`0 H k)

Z a Di

CD
`xi 0 C H ft
a

0 Hi Hi HC) HDi H C Z a CD H `V H Di HZ ft HHi Hi

H CD cc 0 Z
7$

H

Z

C) H CD CD Z HZ C pi 5 CD Z a CD a
0 Z H `C C) 0

ft

Z Di H ft Z' CD ft Di H Hft 0 C C C

0 Di Z Z Hcc Hi 0 H H 0 S H-

ft t HC)

HZ ft Z' CD

cc
S
C · U)
·

6) Di ft cc 0 Z cc

Di
H0 Z
·

0 `0 `0 H CD cc

cc
`xi HHi ft Z C)
·

9 Di H HC) H0 C cc

cc

S
·

C S Z' CD

Z

Z

Di

N)

4 C
·

a a Ci)
ft

Di

ft 1') a',

cc

it C cc HZ CD cc cc

Z' Di

>

C4 0 Z'

Z

a
`0 H Di HZ ft

Di H

p. 9 o C Z ft

cc cc
"

HZ ft HHi Hi H 0 Z C Hi C H H `C Di Z a CA CA
H `a 0

5
·

C)
·

o Hi Di Z a

I Hi 0 0 ft

0 Z 0 H Di C H CD Hi Di C) ft C Di H w C) 0 C H ft Di Z a `xl 0 C H ft CD
·

0

t'i Z ft Hft HCD cc

H 4 Di Z Hft Hcc

Z CD
-..

N) 0 0 `a
IV

·

`

-cm

N) Cii O

`0 H o cc CD C) C ft H0 Z

5
H-

w
CD

a

it Di `C H Hz H Z' Di 4 CD CD HN CD a

Di H H-cc Z 0 ft CD Di cc Z ft cc HCD 0 H ft Z Di H ft Z' Di Di ft Z a ft Z Z' CD CD C H a HCD C Hi CD CD Z Z ft a Di Z Di H H CD C Di ft H0 Z cc
it

t. fr 4 Di Z Hft Hcc Z Di cc
CD

z HC) 0 H CD ft ft HDi H CD Z
ft

o · o

CD

cc C cc

Di Z a Z'

cc

S HH H H0' S
Di a

ç C a C CD

H Di
H-

Z

ft

3 0 C CD H

`o Di C H

Z C a

cc
5
0 Hi

Di H H CD C Di ft H0

o

CD

cc

cc

ft HHi Hi

0 Z

to CD Ct I'. H'

4
C.Ji

w
C
P1 Z
1<

H. to to

C
i Ct P1 Q.

0 0 ii P1

C C C C E
0 Hi E P1 C) 0 0 0 H. 0 Z 0 H' H. CD H' 0 Z

CD 4 B C)
H
t
`

0 0

C

ts)
I H'

Z'CDZ mrt'a P1H. tTil-'·4 4H. H.CD Hi 0 P1 Ct
1<

aaC,
to
`

W P1

C) CD
CD H. 0

4 4 B
CD a Z C

Hi P1 0 i Ct CD H' H. CD

C
Z Ct H.

`4

`a `a
C
CD
Ct

CDP1. CD 01< CDH.a H.
Ct to

H. Z
Ct

0 Hi b P1
Ct Ct

P1 `a H' P1 P1 H. CD to E D 0

P1 Z 0 CD `a Ct 0

H. P1 CD Ct P1 `0 to

4
`0 P1 CD Z CD to H. CD

B
P1 P1 P1

E

CDB 8
0 Hi CD CD H. P1 to C 0 P1 Ct Ct P1 H. H'

a

CD to Ct H. `a P1 Ct H. 0 Z `0 H' P1 H. Z Ct H. Ct CD H' H. 1 CD P1 D 0

C

CD i-i CD

C P1 `a H' P1 ,1 H. CD to 0 0 P1 Z a `a o H' a H'

B
E CD CD Z

CD 4
H' P1 Ct CD H. 0 H' O
to

s
o P1 0 0

P1 Ct Y CD P1 CD a

4

C)
`

Ct tT P1 CD CD to Ct P1 to 0' C to CD a o P1 Ct to 0 0 P1 H. Z CD a CD P1 0 C to H. Ct Ct CD a
`Ti

a 0 0 C

H. 0

H. 0

4
H. P1 0 0

at
CD
0 H' H. 0 CD

C) P1 Ct to 0 0

C)
`4

to 0 P1 to

CD C CD
0 0 C P1 Ct H' I-'

P1 `0 `It P1 CD to P1 c' P1 to

B CD 0

Ct to `0 P1 0

.0

P1 H.

`0

H. CD 0 CD to `V Cl) I H' 0 Hi

P1 P1P1CDH. OtoP1O 0 0'CDto CDCt P1 0 a
·

Ct 0' CD 0 0 CD 0 Hi P1 to Ct to H. 0 `a
·

to CD P1 P1 0 0'

B
C

Hi H. a CD 0 Ct H. P1 H'

CD )

`I 0' CD

CD C)
Ct
0' CD 0' H. to 0' 0 CD

`n
P1 0 a

0 P1 0 CD W CD P1 `a CD 0 H. 0

Ct 0' P1 Ct

4

Ct

`a

`0
P1 P1 P1 P1 Hi Hi
n

Ct H. 0 0

`0 P1 0 · to CD 0 C> Ct 0 0 0 P1 0 P1 to a H. 0 0 Hi `a H' Hi 1< H. 0 CD 0 0 B P1 0 a CD P1

0' C
to

C) P1 Ct to 0 0 P1 `a P1 H. 0 to Ct a CD `0 P1 P1 Ct 0 P1 a CD P1 4 P1 P1 H. 0 0 0

4

H. a CD a

0 H' a

CtOto'4 OCH.' o'aH' CtCtZ 4C" 0Dr `0 1 0P1Ct H' 000 CD

H. E

P1 P1 P1 P1 0 Ct to P1 0

B

6) P1 Ct to 0 CD 0 Ct to C C H' `4 6) P1 Ct to 0 0 Hi P1 0

`< P1 0 a P1 0 a

C

.

P1 a 0'
`

Bto 0
Ct Ct 0' CD CD o 0 CD
--

"

H. Ct 0' P1 0 a CD > CD 0 Hi

B
`a P1 P1 0

`-3 0' H. to

tCDCt H'0tYP1 0 P1CCD a H.Ct

`0c)
P1
(-p

ft
4
H. a CD 1 0 CD

4

z 0 P1 P1 H.

CD to n H. `a P1 Ct H. 0 0 N) 0 to 0 H' Cl) · 0 P1 P1 H. o C to P1 CD 0 0 P1 a to to C

CD

a H. P1

B
B
C
`0 P1 0
to

Cl) `a Ct
·

0 Hi 0' CD 0 0 CD H' H'

0 Ct 0' CD P1

`0 H' P1 H. 0 Ct H. Hi Hi

a CD H. CD P1 to CD Ct H. Ct

P1 `0 `0 H' H. 0 P1 Ct H. 0 0 0

P1 Ct 0 P1 C 0 Ct 0 CD 4 C CD C a H' to `4 Hi N) P1 -J 0

B
to

6) P1 Ct to 0 0 0 Ct 0' CD P1 H P1

aL
4
H' CD a Ct 0' P1 CD CD `0 0 CD 0 P1 to Ct P1 to
c'

Ct 0' CD 0 P1 C 0 Ct

0 0 I `a 0 H. 0 `a Ps) 0 0 H' Ct 0' CD

P1 0 a
`

CD P1 0 C to `0 0' 0 0 CD to H. 0 Hi 0 Hi 0 P1 a

CD P1 CD Ct 0' CD

`

g
X
0 P1 CD to
`-`.

1<

9
1<

t-' H' H'

P1 H. to Ct 0 `0 0' CD P1 Ct 0' CD Cl) 0

to CD CD H. P1 Nt C `0 P1 F-' CD H. 0 0 P1 P1 Ct H. a CD 0 P1 0

CD 0 C Ct 0 P1 H. P1 H'

Ct 0' CD H. P1 z Ct to

CtP1P1Co t P1tot CDH' to 0P1Ct LTiHiCt XHi1<P1 CD 0'H. H.OtoHi CCDCDCD H.P1 H. CtP1N toCDCt x a° OP1Ct Ct00' CDaCD a

B

Ct 6) P1 0' Ct CD CD to P1 V 0 `0 0000 C C H' to H. H. 0 P1 0 to CD CD P1 to CD Ct P1 Ct 0

0 C Ct 0'
e

H. 0

0 H. P1 0 H. Hi B 0 H. C40HiHi P1 0 0 P1 H' P1 P1 r' co H. 0' P1 Ct 0 CD 0' P1 0 CD

CD 0 Ct Ct E 0 0 Hi

P1 P1

t H' 0 `4 CD CD to

a CD 0 Ct H. P1 H'

obtained during the two--year investigation,

as mentioned above,

as well as confirmation that Carson ad no identifiable

legitimate income.

The Somerset County Prosecutor's Office

sought the issuance of three search warrants based upon probable cause to believe that the fruits of criminal activity would be found in the three identified locations, residence of Daniel Gatson; (2) namely, (1) the

the residence of Daniel Gatson's

grandmother, and (3)

Iva Gatson,

with whom Gatson had previously resided; Gatson's aunt, with

the residence of Robin Treadvance,

whom Gatson had phone conversations concerning money transactions. The search warrants were issued on July 30, D'Italia, A.J.S.C. (Compi., Ex. 2001, N).

by the Honorable Arthur N.

All of the property sought by Plaintiffs in this action were seized pursuant to the search warrants, on July 31, 2001. Some

of the property seized formed the basis for Gatson's indictment and eventual conviction in November 2004 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, 11-2672. Law Division, Bergen County, under Indictment No. 01

Gatson appealed his New Jersey state court conviction and sentence. On direct review, Gatson raised arguments regarding the search warrants, contending that they were obtained unlawfully and in violation of his constitutional rights. The conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, on November 1, 2007, but the matter was remanded for sentencing in light of State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 182 (2006) The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on February 6, 2008. State v. Gatson, 194 N.J. 269 (2008)
.

5

Gatson admits that he has

filed several actions in state

court for replevin with respect to the property at issue in this case. On December 9,

2005,

Gatson filed a civil action in the Law [ivision, Somerset County, The matter was Law Division, in

Superior Court of New Jersey, against Wayne Forrest,

Docket No.

Som-L--l733-05.

transferred to the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Mercer County under docket rio. favor of defendant,

L--3l81-07.

Summary judgment

Wayne Forrest,

the Prosecutor of Somerset dismissing Gatson's Gatson appealed

County was granted on July 18,

2008,

Complaint for the return of the monies sought. from tie order of summary judgment, affirmed,

and the Appellate Division

finding that summary judgment was properly granted

because defendants were entitled to prevail as a matter of law. 3 See Gatson v. Sept. Forrest, 2009 WL 3082063 (N.J. Super. App. Div.

29,

2009) 8, 2008, Matthew Murphy, Assistant Prosecutor for

On August

the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office wrote to Gatson advising plaintiff that the Office wished to return certain personal property to plaintiff, including the 1999 Bayliner Boat and which had been seized during the

$8,938.00 held on account,

The Appellate Division noted that the money seized from the home of Gatson's aunt, pursuant to the search warrant on July 31, 2001, was packaged in a manner so precisely matching the description of cash register receipts wrapping the stolen cash from the Arvinitises' home, that the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office released the cash, plus interest, to the Arvinitises on August 24, 2001. The amount released was $253,310.00, which was the amount sought by Gatson in his replevin action and in this action.
6

HN C) 0

H CD

it

NJ H(I)

C)

o
CD it it
-`

it

Cl
it Cl CD

S
Cl
0 it Hit C) it it C) N C) it 0 Cl CD H it
-,

Cl 0
N) C) C) Co N H H N N C) CD CD N H it HCD H

N

N N
ill

Cl C)
-

5 C)
CD it
it

it N it it N it N 0 Di it H0 N it
H0

Hit N

HH

C&)

CD N
N N N

C) 0
H) it it

H

N CD HN CD

C) Cl
H it

N

CD

CD

Cl

CD N N Di it CD N C) CD N N N CD Hit it

Cl
CD

it it

Cl
C) H CD HN C) it N H-

N

N

C)

C)
N N N N N

it

C)

Cl
Cl
CD N N

H
N C) C)
it C)

Cl
N N
LJ-

C) 0 N H it Cl H CD

0 it HN CD it it H-

C)

5

Cl N
Cl

H H-

H-

CO

N

N CD jQ

it C)

0

N

5
C)
CD N N N CD

Cl 5 CD
it H)
`

C)
0
N N
J

C) H

CD it it

5
CD CD CD
HC) CD Cl 0 C)
CD

N Cl

it
CD H NJ C) C) it Hit it N

N

N < N N C)
it

it
(Ii

Cl
Cl
H C) N C) Cl) CD N it N 0

C)

it 0)

H HN 0 N CD H

N it H HC) it

it it

H-

S
N it H0

C)
0 N CD it

N H N

H HN

CD N it N
it 0

HN H CD N it H-

C)

it H-

C) it N H-

HN H-

CC)

C) N 5
0 Cl Cl it it 0
-,

N N
it H*

0 H H

CD N Cl CD Cl C) 0 N H it CD

C) 0
C)

(1)

C)
H-

C)
Cli

C)
CD N
-

NJ Co O

CD
C)
it
Li-

it Cl N it

Cl Cl
0 N N it 0 H CD

C)

N HN it N 0

5

it N C 0 N it Cl CD Cl CD

C)
N it H0 N

C) H C) Cl Cl) H CD C) it

o
Cl

N H it it it N

it Di it

C) Cl
CD N
H-

5
Di

N it

N C) it H0 N

N it H0 N

it

C)

N Cl
C) C) C)
Hit

S
C li C) it

it

H)

Hit it

)

Cl CD

0

it

Cli NJ

C) CD

0
C) C)

C)

N

N CD

it

5
0) NJ

CD Cl
--

co
CD N C) N it N
it it

5
Cl
CD
C)
-

HN Hit Cl CD H

N it N it CD NJ C)
0)

C) H 0 C) N C) N H-

CD
H it H)

C) N N it C)

C)
Cl
L<

it N HN it CD it H H) HN N it Hit it N

N H C)

C) CD CD Cl HN

H CD

it

0

NJ

C)
C)
it

H

H

HCD C/) C)
·

CD C)

5 C)
it

C) 5 Cl
C)
N N Cl CD N it N 0 it H HC) it C) 0 H CD

CD 5
H)

N
N

it Cl N NJ C) NJ
it

Cl HN C) N it
H

Cl
0
H it

Di C) CD N

CD N HN it

H)

N)
N it it Hit CD

Cl

CD
C) Cl Cl
it CD H
N

CD

HN

C)
0

N

it 0

C) it

0 H C) N N HN N it H0 N N

C)
C) it CD

C)
N N
it N C) H it N
·

0 C) C) CD it

Cl
N CD N

N CD N H C) Cl N CD CD C) it Cl N HN it H-

NJ C) C) NJ

Cl
·

5
C)

it Cl CD

N Cl H HN CD

N
CD HN CD H

-

it 0 H C/) C) Cl N

N H Cli

5
H-

C) 0

it Cli

--

5
5
-

NJ
it C)

it

C) Cl N N Cl
N

it it
it H H)

C) Cl

N N Cl

C)
N

Cl U)

CD N

0
Cl
it it

C) it C)

N

HN

C)
0 N CD N 0 N )i

Cl
N

C) 0 Cl C)

C)

N HN HN

C) H 0

Cl
C) C)

5 5
N 0

CD
H-

N it
H it

C) C)
C)
N 0
H-

IN

NJ NJ

IN
U)

C) it N HN it

-

S
Hit

N N
HN CD N N

0 C) CD
N
H
CD H-

N

it

it

N

C) CD
H N CD
Hit

CD H H-

H-

C)
it U)
-

C) Cl
CD H
it
-

0 N

Cl

C) N it N 0 N N N CD H it

it
it
it it

it H) H0 N C) H

*

H CD it N H N

Hit CD Cl

Cl
-

H)
it Cl CD Cl H)

Q N
it

0 C) N
it
it C) C)

N
Cl)

N it CD
C)

H H-

C) N it H0

N

it

Cl C) N
it

0 H CO C)
·

Cl

N

0 H
N
Hit N C)

0
HN
it

5
Cl
CD 0 it N

C)
0 N

N

NJ (Y HN

it

·

CD NJ C) C)
C) CD

C) H H HC) N

-

5
0 it

N
Cl N

Cl N
C)

N N

N N 0 it

C li )) Cl HCl Hit

it it H-

Cl

5
H)
H0 N
N

it

Cl
it H-

N CD C) N it 0 H) N

Cl 0
H CD H C)

C/) CD C) it CD

C)
CD

it

it

0 C) CD it CD H

Cl CD H

S
N CD
H) 0 it
·

N C) CD

CD C) N

N

HC) N
it

S

HN

H

Cl H) N) 0 HH CD N CD CD C) it HN CD H

it
-

C)

C) C) 0)

it

it

C)

it N HN it Hit it

-

H H0 it N it H0 N

Cl
N

it

H0 N

C)
it

Cl

CD H
H-

N

o

U

U) N) U)

H

U)
H-

U
CD

CD CD U) CD H H-

H CD CD U) N)
-

U)
HHCD N)
CD

C__) U
U) H0 U `-C

CD
N)

U) CD HN) C) C) N) CD H-

U)
N) U)

U C)

U)
U U)
CD

U
U

N) CD U

CD H N) U) CD H

o
0
N)

CD C) C) CD

CD U
`
-

U CD

0 U H N)

U)
U C)
U) HN) CD HHH CD U)
N)

HU)

N) CD N) U) CD N) CD

H CD U)

H CD

U)

N) U) CD

U
CD CD
--

U) CD
CD
CD
-

CD

U)
U
N)

co
U) U)

H

CD
-

C) CD
CD
·
--
--

U 0 N) CD
-

N)

5
U U N) U N)

H CD CD U H-

U
C
0 U) N) CD

o

N)

HN)

CD CD

U)

S
CD
N)

N) CD U) CD N)

<1
<:

o
U)
-

N) HN) N)

U)
U
U) N)

H CD CD CD

C)

U CD N)

C)
U)

S
N)
U) CD N)
HCD

CD
N) 0 U) CD H-

0

o U) o o
S
U CD
CD CD H HU U) CD CD N) H

N) HU) U) N)

CD U)
CD H
CD

N) N) 0

U)
CD U

CD

CD C) CD

U
<:

N) CD H-

U C)

U)
CD

U
U)

C H

N) H
--

U CD
U
H-

N)

U
U CD
U CD CD
N) CD N)
U)
·

HCD
Cr)

0 CD N)

U) CD H U CD H

5
H-

S
U) CD C)

N) 0 H

XC U) 0 HCD
HH CD N) HCD N)

C)
HCD

U)
U

CD
U)

U CD
N) CD

U

HCD

CD H0

U) HCD N) · CD N) N)

HU N) CD H CD U C)

rCD N) C)

CD) H H-

U)
U U)
N) CD HCD U CD N) CD H-

5

5
5 5
U U CD
CD `<

U C)
-

CD

N) CD

H CD N) N) 0 N) N) N)
N)

`1
N)

CD
U)

N) CD C) C U U)
CD 0 CD

CD N) Cl) 0 U
HCD CD CD N)

N) CD H U) H CD N) HU U)

N) CD C) N)

N) H H-

·

CD
U) H N) U) N) 0 H CD

N) H H-

HU) CD U N) HN) `<

U) 0

U)
N)
U)
· ·

U)
U
<

C:
N) 0

U)

<

C)

CD

U)
CD
N) H 0

0

N) N)
-

U)
U) · U) N) CD

CD
U) CD
U) CD

N)
0

0 U)

0 N) 0 CD

CD

U C)
N) 0 CD

N) U)

<1
C)
0

U
HN

H U

S
U U)
CD H

U) H
U
N)
CD

CD
0
CD

U)

CD

U)
CC) U) C)
CD N) H

CD

H

CD N) N) U) H-

U
N) HN) N)

U

CD U N) N) H-

U)

U CD Cl)
H U) H-

CD

U

5
H HCD 0 CD

U) H CD

-

CD

HN)

CX)

HN)

o
N) N)

CD
-

CD

U
CD U

U)
CD U) CD
-- --

N

U) U) N)

S
U CD
H N) 0 N) CD N) H-

CD H U) HCD U C) `-< U) CD

N) CD

C) U U
CD HCD CD H

CD

5
U) C)
N) CD U) N) H0
-

U)
N)
0 H HC) H0 N) CD U) 0 N) U)

N) CD N)

CD

CD
-

C)
CD

C CD C)

HN)

CD CD

U) CD U) C)
·0

U)
H CD

<1
U
HH N)
CD
F-' CX)

U) CD N) H0 U) U) N) 0 N) N)
U) U)

U CD

o
U
U)
N)

CD CD CD U) N) CD HCD

·

a)
U
U) H-

C) N) CD H-

U
C:
·

H

N) CD

C)

U
·

CD
HCD U) CD CD
·

CD

U

5
CD CD U

U) N) 0 CD CD

S

N) CD HU
H-

o
U)
U)
·

C CD

N)
U
N) C: U)
U)
·

C:

U)
CD

H CD N) HCD N)

N)

U)
--
·

HN) N) HCD N) HN) N) HN) N)

CD
N)

CD CD

N) CD N)

CD U
Cl)

U) CD
N) CD
N)
--

N)

H CD
N) N)
L<

IC)
H

U)
H

CD

CD
C) U

CD

U)

0 H

0
(I)

0
CD
H-

U)
C) CD CD

U)
`--i-

N)

S
·
H

CD

CD

C) HH ·

N) N)
-,

U)

X)

CD H U)

U U
CD

U)

0

H CD N) H

co
CD

co
U

N)

S

C) 0

S S U)
N)
N)

U)
CD

U) U) C) 0 H-

N) CD HN) CD H 0 C) CD CD CD C) N) C:

N) 0

CD

U N) U)
0
Cl)

U
CD U)
CD
4

N) HN) `-C

CD

CD

U) CD N)

U
0 CD
F-'

U)
N) CD 0 H CD N) CD

CD

C'

U) U)
CD

CD CD N) 0 H CD

CD C)
0 U H

CD
HU N) CD

U) CD CD

U)

5
N) CD H-

U) CD CD

N) CD N)
U)
--

N) 0 HU U) CD CD CD CD CD

·

0 U CD N) CD H

C)
·

`-C U
CD

IC)
U) U)

lCD
0 H

-

N)

C:

N) CD

·
H

U U)
HCD

·

CD N) CD N) CD CD N) CD 0

U U N)
-

U)
CD

U) U)
CD C CD H C)

U) 1 N U U) N)

U
-

N)

CD CD

N) CD

N) U

U)

CD U
CD

N) CD

CD CD HCD

CD CD CD CD H N) HC) U CD CD N) N)

S
N)

C:

0 N)

CD

--`

U

N) HN) CD CD U

U U) CD
N) U) CD

tO
-- CC)
--

H CD N) HCD N) 0

C) U N)
N) CD H-

C) 0 U) HCD

U

-

o
U H
N)

N) U) CD

S

U)

U)

CD CD

N) H 0

U

5
U)

5
CD

HCD CD

S

H N) HCD

former § 1915 (d) )

.

The standard for evaluating whether a Deutsch v.
United

complaint is "frivolous" is an objective one.
States, A
67 F.3d 1080,

1086--87

(3d Cir.

1995).

se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a

claim only if it appears "`beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Gibson, at 93--94 Haines, 41, 45--46 404 U.S. (1957))
.

at 521

(quoting Conley v. 551 U.S. the Court

355 U.S.

See also Erickson,

(In a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint,

reviewed whether the complaint complied with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 (a) (2) However, recently, the Supreme Court refined this standard

for summary dismissal of a Complaint that fails to state a claim in Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009)
.

The issue before

the Supreme Court was whether Iqbal's civil rights complaint adequately alleged defendants' personal involvement in

discriminatory decisions regarding Iqbal's treatment during detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center which, violated his constitutional rights. 8 (a) (2) Id. if true,

The Court examined Rule

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides

that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P.

8(a) (2).

Citing its recent opinion in Bell

Rule 8(d) (1) provides that "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d).

1

9

Atlantic Corn. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), for the proposition that "[a] pleading that offers `labels and conclusions' or `a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,' "Igbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twomblv, 550 U.S. at 555), the Supreme Court identified two working principles underlying the failure to state a claim standard: First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice ... . Rule B ... does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well--pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not "show[n]"--"that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). labal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949--1950 (citations omitted). The Court further explained that a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausible give rise to an entitlement to relief. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950.

10

Thus,

to prevent a summary dismissal,

civil complaints must

now ·aileqe "sufficient factual matter" to show that a claim is facially plausible. This then "allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 1948. The Supreme Ccurt' s ruling in

Iqbal emphasizes that a ulaintiff must demonstrate that the allegations of his complaint is plausible. also Twcmbly, F.3d
,

. at 1949-50;
UP4C Shadyside, 18, 2009).

505 U.S.

at 555,

& n.3; *4

Fowler v. Aug.

2009 WL 2501662,

(3d Cir.,

Consequently,

the Third Circuit observed that Igbal provides

the "final nail--in--the--coffin" for the "no set of facts" standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45--46 (1957), that 2009 WL

applied to federal complaints before Twombly. 2501662, *5·

Fowler,

The Third Circuit now requires that a district

court must conduct the two-part analysis set forth in Iqbal when presented with a motion to dismiss: First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. [labal, 129 5.Ct. at 1949--501. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the

[n.]

In Conley, as stated above, a district court was permitted to summarily dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only if "it appear[ed] beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Id., 355 U.S. at 45--46. Under t5is "no set of facts" standard, a complaint could effectively survive a motion to dismiss so long as it contained a bare recitation of the claim's legal elements. 11

plaintiffs entitlement to relief. A complaint has to "show" such an entitlement with its facts. See Phills, 515 F.3d at 234--35. As the Supreme Court instructed in lobal, "[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, me complaint has alleged-but t has not `show [n'--'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Ibal, [129 S.Ct. at 1949-50] This "plausibility" determination will be "a context--specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
. .

Fowler,

2009 WL 2501662,

*5 however, that the sufficiency of this

This Court is mindful,

p se pleading must be construed liberally in favor of Plaintiff, (2007)
.

even after Iqbal.

See Erickson v.

Pardus,

551 U.S.

89

Moreover,

a court should not dismiss a complaint with

prejudice for failure to state a claim without granting leave to amend, unless it finds bad faith, See Grayson v. 2002); undue delay, prejudice or 293 F.3d 103, 117 110-

futility. 111 2000)

Mayview State Hosp., Fauver,

(3d Cir.

Shane v.

213 F.3d 113,

(3d Cir.

III.

SECTION 1983 ACTIONS § 1983.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 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 injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress
... . ..

12

Thus,

to state a claim for relief under § 1953,
first, the violation of a right

a plaintiff must

aliege,

secured by the second, that the

Constituti.on or laws of the United States and,

alleed decrivation was committed or caused by a cerson acting under color of state law. (1958 1994) Most all of the named defendants are state actors, named defendants Liane Abed, Robert Grogan, except
;

West v.

Atkins,

487 U.S.

42,

48 t3d Cir.

Piecknick v.

Pennsylvania,

36 P. 3d 1250,

1255--56

loannis "John"

Arvanitis and Martha Arvanitis,

who are private citizens that

were burglarized and had their stolen property returned to them by the prosecutors' offices. Accordingly, these individual

defendants,
action.

not being state actors,

will be dismissed from this

Additionally,

the State of New Jersey must be dismissed from The Eleventh "The

this action pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that,

Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any sLit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted or

against one of the United States by citizens of another State, by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." pr oposition, As a general

a suit by private parties seeking to impose a

liability which must be paid from public funds in a state treasury is barred from federal court by the Eleventh Amendment, unless Eleventh Amendment immunity is waived by the state itself

13

it
CD C) 0

o
C)
0

N N) 0 CD CD it N)
CX)

N) it
it

HN

N
H-

a a
C)
N

it

CD C)

a
it

a a
C). N)
Di N HN
CX)
Ni
-

Di
Di C) N CD 0)
(ii it

CD
C)

H-

CD C) C) C)
C)
·

N
it

C)

Ft

it

o
C)
-

0
Ft

N) CD it

0 C)

N CD HN C) N CD N N HN

a a
u
it

N 0 N CD N 0 N CD
N CD C) it

C) 0 C N

CD

it C) 0 N

a

CD
Ft

0
0 it
it

Di 0 N C)
Ft HFt

N N
it

it <

C) it 0 N
CD C) N C)

CD N N CD t it Q N

0 it it HC) HDi it

a

0 it it HC) CD it it Di HC) HDi it it CD N N

Di H-

N CD

·

C)

C)
0 it
Ft

HN N CD

Di

Di

C)

a
0 it
Ft

X) N N HN) CD C) it

it N 0 N CD C) C

Di
N
it

C) 0 C) N CD C) N
·

it N) Ni
C)

it CD C)CD N Di it

o
C)
C)
N

C) it

it H) N Ft

C) C) it C)
0 C)
it

·

it N 0

C) 0

it 0 N

Di it

it
H)
-

C) 0 C) C)
Hit it N

C)
H-

N CD CD Di

a
C) C)
CD
Ft

C) it 0 C)
it
·

it 0 N 0

Di N) CD C) C) HCD N CD

N

a a
CD N C)
it it

N) 0

a
C)
N)
it Co Ni
·

it it it

`-< N H-

CD

a a
N 0 N

it it Di HC) it H it

C)
it
N) 0

0 N HDi it Hit H)

C)
H)

a
). Di it

a
it

Di C)

·

it

Di
it

it Di C) Ht HCD N

C)
CD
H) N

Di
it

CD

C) N)

C) C)
N Di H-

Di H-

a
Di
it CD CD N

a a
it CD

-3
CD it

CD

a
C)
Di

C)

it CD

a
CD
`

HN

it C)
N 0 CD N CD CD Di it

Ft

C)
C) 0 C)

CD

a
Di 2)

CD N N CD it

a
N)

it 0 N C) CD N C)

a
C)
N) CD N

Di C)
it
C)

N
rt

HN
--
· ·

N C) C) )
C) it 0

0 N N H-

HC) CD it it HCD N N CD it

0 it

CD it H) 0 C)
--

a
C)
0 it

N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N Di N) Di HC) N

CD

C)

it it CD

N

N)
CD CD

a
C)
it Di it it it it H)

N it Di it C) it CD it N 0 it CD N it H) N) CD N N) CD

it N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N

a
CD

CX)
Ui

C)
it
HN

CD C)
it

N CD it

-

C) it
H-

it
C) C) it

a
it
it

CD
*

C)
CD CD

Hit Hit H) it 0 N N) CD N CC) CD

N it Di it C) it CD

a a
CD
-

CD N

it

a
C)
H)

0 it Di C) N) CD N N) CD C) 0 C)

a
it N 0 N

a
Xt

it

0 N

CD C) it C) C) C CD N N HN

C)
·

a
C)

Di N) Di H-

CD it

CD C)
<

N) N it CD C)
Co

N Q C)

it N C)

C)

CD C)

S
N)

it
C) it
C) N it

Di it

it H-

C) 0 C) C) it

a a
C)
Ft

0
CD

t) H) N) it N)

N)

a
CD

C)

CD

a
CD

it

a
Di C)) N Di

`

Ft

C)
·

it
it

C)
--

Hit Di it

it C) N N C) Di C) it

C)
it H)

C) it Di HH-

N it Di it CD

N C) Hit

C)
Di
-

it 0

it it HC) CD

a
it

C)
·

N
·

0 C) N it 0 N H) 0 it it it

C) C) it 0 N

Di N)
·

a
C)
Ni
Ni N

it

C)
CD C) C) C) it CD HC)

Di

N it Di it CD

C)

N

o
-U
Ni

a
CD N) 21
-

-

it

N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N HDi

Di N) Di

Hit Di it H0 C) N

a
-

C) 0 C) C) it H)

N it Di it CD

C)

it

N)

C) C) C)
CC)
it N it N)
CX)

a
it
N

CD

a a
Di N

it

H-

a
CD

it N 0 it CD C) it N Di H) C) CD N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N it it HC) CD N N) C) N N it N CD N Di it

0 N

HHN
--

C)

it

N) CD CD

N

it

CD

a a a
-

N CD Di N C) CD HN Di C) it N N HN it Di

it N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N

a
Di C)
--J

C) C)
C)
it N Di C) 0 H)5 C) it Di H) C) CD 0 it CD

it

C)

N it Di it HC)
N)
--

C) C) Hit

CD

a a
·

N) HC) Di
N it

N) it Di Cii
it

C) 0 C) it CD

C)

N) CD N N) CD C) C) 0 C)

2) 0 N N CD it

CD <) CD C) it

C) C)
C)
·

it

`

H-

CD

r

H)

C) 0 C) N it Di N N Di C) it

a
CD it H)
--

a
it CX) N)

a
CD HN it H) CD N Di it

it

·

C) C)
CD
it

a
CD it 0

it

Di N it -<
-

N) C)

a
0 0
it

N

it

"[A]

state prosecuting attorney who act[s]

within the scope of

his duties in initiatinc and pursuing a criminal prosecuior" is
not amenable to suit under § 1983. imbier v. Pachtman,

124 U.S.

409,

410

(1976)

.

Thus,

a prosecutor's appearance in court as an

advocate in support of an application for a search warrant and the presentation of evidence at such a hearing are protected by absolute immunity.
Similarly,

Burns v,

Reed,

500 U.S.

478,

492

(1991)

"acts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the and which occur are

initiation of udicia1 proceedings or for trial,

in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, entitled to the protections of absolute immunity." Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993)

Buckley v.

A prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity, for actions undertaken in some other function. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 1:18 (1997)

however,

See Kalina v.

(prosecutor is protected only by

qualified immunity for attesting to the truth of facts contained in certification in support of arrest warrant, as in her

provision of such testimony she functioned as a complaining witness rather than a prosecutorial advocate for the state) ; Burns, 500 U.S. at 492-96 (the provision of legal advice to

police during pretrial investigation is protected only by qualified immunity); Buckley, 409 U.S. at 276-78 (prosecutor is

not acting as an advocate, immunity,

and is not entitled to absolute

when holding a press conference or fabricating
.

evidence)

See also Yarns v.

County of Delaware,

465 F.3d 129

15

(3d Cir.

2006) (where the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

presents a detailed and nuanced analysis of when a prosecuting attorney is, and is not, entitled to absolute immunity for

allegediy wrongful acts n connect:on with a prosecution, holding, for example, that a prosecutor is not entitled to

absolute immunity for deliberately destroying highly exculpatory evidence, but is entitled to immunity for making the decision to

deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence before and during trial, but not after the conclusion of adversarial proceedings) it is not entirely clear whether Plaintiffs'

Here,

allegations against the prosecutor defendants fall within the scope of prosecutorial duties protected under prosecutorial immunity. Plaintiffs allege, among others, that the prosecutor

defendants engaged in malicious prosecution and deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth Amendment right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure. While there is absolute it is not

immunity for certain actions on behalf of a prosecutor,

entirely clear whether all alleged actions are covered under the absolute immunity doctrine. 1402, 1409-17 (3d Cir. See Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d

1991) (absolute immunity covers a (1) creating and filing of an

prosecutor's actions in complaint; and (3) (2)

preparing of and applying for the seizure warrant;

participating in ex parte hearing for the issuance of the
.

seizure warrant)

Therefore,

the Court will refuse to dismiss

the claims against these prosecutor defendants on the grounds of

16

absolute immunity from a lawsuit for damages. discussed infra in Section IV. D.,

However,

as

the claims are dismissed

against all cf the rrosecutor defendants on statute of limitations croun3s. B. Judicial Immunity Plaintiffs' N. O'ltalia, claims against defendants, the Honorable Arthur J.S.C.,

J.S.C.

and the Honorable William Meehan,

must be dismissed because these defendants are subject to judicial immunity from suit. As a general rule, a judicial officer in the performance of Mireless v. (1991)
.

his or her duties has absolute immunity from suit. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 1. Ed.2d 9

This

immunity extends to judges of courts of limited jurisdiction, such as New Jersey municipal court judges. Blackburn, 435, 441-43 39 F. Supp.2d 479, 2000). 484 (D.N.J. "[a] Fiueroa v. 1999), aff'd, 208 F.3d

(3d Cir.

Further,

judge will not be was

deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, done maliciously, Sparkman, (1978)
.

or was in excess of his authority." 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.

Stump v. Ed.2d 331

435 U.S.

Judicial immunity serves an important function in that

it furthers the public interest in judges who are `at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." 18 L. Ed.2d 288 Pierson v. (1967)
.

Ray,

386 U.S.

547,

554,

87 S.Ct.

1213,

Judicial immunity is an immunity from

17

H-

ft
Li-

H0
ft

C
C)
CD CD

0
ft C
C
Fl
Li-

Cl HU)
LiCu

F-h

Fl
H-

C

C ft C) N)
C) C) 0 Cl)
`

ft 0

C)
HLI-

ft C) CC
C)

C) C Cl C
H-

ft Cl CD

C C
C)
CC CD H-

C Cl C) CD

Di ft ft CD C) Fl Q C

CD C)
ft
F--i
*

CD C) C

Hft

CD Fl Fl 0 Fl CC Cl CD
Di

Fl ft

---I CD C)

HC rt

C)
- Ci

Cl CD
C)
ft

C C
C)
CD

C). C) CD
C Fl H0 HC HDi
C)
·

() ci CD
ft Fl
H-

CC
CC

Fl
`

CD C ft
HFl CC

Cl 0

k<

Di ft H0

C)
C)

C) Cl 0
----

Hft <

C CC
ft H-

C
CC

ft
Di ft
ft Li

C 0

C) C
H·

H Cl CD Fl CD HCC Cl CD CC CC C) Di C Cl ft HC Cl H

ft kci C

ft Fl H-

F-h Fl 0

C) C)
Cl
·

Di

C
-

C)
C
ft

C Cl
ci

Di Fl CD

Cl
C)
HFl
· ·

CD Di ft 0
ft

ft CC

Di C Cl) CD Cl

C C) Cl
0 CD CC C C H-

Hft Cl 0 C ft
ft CD CD

0 C) ft Fl 0 ci CD Fl CC HDi ft C) Cl ft Cl CD

C
Hft CC C 0

C) C)
ft

C
CC

ft

ft

ft

Hft <

C C
C)
CD
(Ji
--

H Cl CD 0 ft
Li--

Cl Di ci CD Fl CD

·

ft Cl CD CD HCC
·

C) 0 ft HC
L<

C) C) ft HCD

0 F-h

C Hci Hft

0

CD Hft Cl CD Fl

Cl
CD U) CD CD

i_i-

Cl
C)
C)
C)

ft HC) Cl ft H-

ft
Fl HCD
----

C

0

Cl

lU) Hf)
ft Di

C
0 F-h Di ft ft ft
H)

ft CD Di Fl ft Di C ft ft C)
-

F-h Fl 0

C

Cl

C)

C)

C HFl C C ft Cl CD HFl

Cl CD C

C)
Cl C
C)
·

Di C ft H0 C CC

ci
Hft CC ft Cl Di ft C) C 0 ft HCD CC C Hft

ci C
Cl
CD C) Di

C
CD Fl CD
C) C)

HC HDi ft

H)

ft

ft HDi Cl Hft HC CD Fl 0 Di 0 Fl H Di ft H0 C C CC ft Hft

C) ft Di HC ft HF-h ft

0 ft Cl H-

C 0 C CC HCl CD Fl Di ft H0 CC CD C) C CD C C CD CC

C)
ft Cl

C

CD Di ft CD

Cl

C ft ft H-

ft
H) CD

CC ft Di

C)

H-

H-

`-ci

C

C)
ci
H

ft Cl CD C). CD C) Fl H-

Di ft CD

C
C) CD

Di
r--

C) C)
U) Di C 0 ft

C) C)
C
Cl) ft

C)
ci IC
C
Li-

C CD CC CC Hci CD 0 Fl CD HCC CC C CD

CD

C

U) 0 Fl Fl CD CC ft CD Fl C) Hci CD ft Cl CD Cl HCC Di C) Fl CD CD Di Fl Di C ft CD Fl

ft

C) C)
ft Cl CD H-

C

Di `-ci

-

CC) Di ft ft Di CC

C C Hft H)

Cl CD

Cl 0

IC)

C

ft 0 t3
`

Hft `-ci · Di CC
HLi-

C)

C C Cl CD Fl ft Di

C C)

ft

C) ft CD Di

ci

Li-

C) C)
Cl
ft

Di CC CC CD CC CC

U) C C) C)

C
ft Cl CD
CC

ci
Cl
Di ft C) Hft

H-

CD

C)
C
U) C C Cl C) CD C C Hft `-ci

C) Cl Di CC HN CD Cl

C Cl

Di Fl CD CD
·

CD ci CD Fl

C
C)
u-i

Cl Hft CD
N) Cl H-

C Cl HC HDi ft Fl CD Di CC 0 C ft
C)

ft CD Fl CC Di ft Cl CD 0 ft

H Cl CD
N

C
CD
`

`-

Cl Fl CD Di Cl ft

0 ci CD Fl C 0 C) Hft Cl Di ft

C)
C)
CC
`-<

Cl

Cl
U) Di ft Cl CD Di ft C)

CD ft 0 Fl CD

Li-

Fl CD

CD Di C
C) Cii

ft Di C ft

C) C)
ft Cl CD

ci
·

ft Cl CD

CD

C)
ft Cl CD
Li-

Di

C)
C)
U) Di >C C Cl C) CD

C)
ft HCD CC

Cl Di

Di Fl Fl 0 C C Hft

·

ft HFl CC ft U) HDi C ft H0

C)
ft Cl Di ft Di
Li-

HC

C) Cl CD Fl CD

C Cl HC HDi ft

Cl Hci HCl C Di ft

C)
Q
ft

Di

C)
H Cl C CC C Cl Cl C CD

Cl

H Cl CD CC CD

Li-

a
0 C ft Fl HCD

CC Cl 0 C 0 C Fl ft
C)

Di C ft H0

C

C
CC

CC C 0 C) CD N) ft C)
N)

Cl Di CC HC

C
I
o

C Cl C) CD ft

Cl HCC

C
Cl
$

CD Fl ft Di HCC

CC) 0 C Fl ft ft
ft
ft

ft HC) C

CD < ft CD C CC H-

Di C) CD CC Di H) D C)

C)
Cl

Cl
0 C) CD

CD CC C 0
H-

ci

CD )< C CD C) ft H0 ft
C) ft

C Cl C) CD C 0 Fl

Di

C) Fl 0 C) CD Fl

C)

C

C

CD `C C CD C)

CC

CD CC

C

CD

X
C)
ft

*

Cl CD Di HDi Cl

CD Di

CC

Di

ci
C
C)

CD U)
*

C)
ci Cl
H)
*

Fl CD

Fl
CD
C)

Cl Cl CD 0 ft Hci CD

ft

C)

CD
U)

ft

0

CD CC

HCC

C
CD Cl

ft

Cl
CD ft Cl CD

Di Fl CD

H0 C CC

ft

CC

where a judge engages in nonjudiciat acts, taken in the judge's judioial capacity. 208 5. 3d at 440.

i.e.,

actions not

Id.;

see also Fioueroa,

The second exception involves actions that, are taken in the ccmoiete absence of 502 U.s. at 11; Eigueroa, 208 P.3d

thouoh judicial in nature, all jurisdiction. at 440.

Mireless,

Neither exception is applicable in the present case. Plaintiffs fail to assert any allegations aaainst

here,

Judge D'Italia and Jddge Meehan that would show that they acted
outside their judicial capacity. Plaintiffs' allegations pertain

to Judge D'Italia's issuance of the search warrants sought by the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office and Judge Meehan's presiding over Gatson's state criminal trial, and sentenced on November 5, 2004. in which Gatson was convicted These allegations clearly

involve only court--related matters occurring during those state court proceedings. Consequently, Plaintiffs have failed to

allege any actionable claim against Judge D'Italia or Judge M e e ha n. There simply are no allegations to suggest that these or in

judges acted beyond the scope of their judicial authority, the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Judge D'Italia and Judge Meehan, liability, Therefore,

defendants,

are absolutely immune from

and this Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice, as against these defendants.

in its entirety, C.

Claims for Recovery of Property Are Now Barred It appears that Plaintiffs are attempting by this lawsuit to

make an "end run" around the judgments entered against Gatson in

19

his state court actions for repievin, December 9,
respect .flQ5

As stated a..ove,

on

Gason filed a

civil

action for rerlevin with in the Superior Court against Wayne

to the same property at issue here, Law Division,

of New Jersey,

Somerset County,

Forrest,
to tne

Docket No.

Som--L--1733--05. CE New uersey,

That matter was transferred Law
OjV1SIOO, ercer Oounty

buperior

curt

under docket no.

L-3181-07,

and summary judgment was granted in on July 18,

favor of defendant,

Wayne Forrest,

2008,

dismissing Gatson

Gatson's Complaint for the return of the monies sought. had filed another replevin action in Bergen County, Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli, 07, Docket No.

against BER-L-29872007,

which was dismissed with prejudice on November 16,

because it was duplicative of the replevin action initially filed in Somerset County. Thus, to the extent that Gatson wishes to his recourse is properly made by Indeed, Gatson did appeal from the

challenge those judgments,

direct appeal in state court.

order of summary judgment in the replevin action against Forrest, and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding that summary

judgment was properly granted because defendants were entitled to prevail as a matter of law. 3082063 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Gatson v. Sept. 29, Forrest,
.

2009 WL this

2009)

Therefore,

Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of Plaintiff' s state court civil judgment, pursuant to the Rooker--Feidman Doctrine. 6

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415--16 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, (1983)

20

"Under the Rooker-Feldrnan doctrine, lacks subject matter jurisdiction, effectively would rulin."
reverse a stare

a district court

if the relief requested
court decision or

void its
192

Taliaferrc v.

Darby Two.

Zonino Rd.,

458 F.3d 151,

(3d Cir.

2006)

.

rlhis doctrine is a narrow one, (1) state-court losers (3)
(4) (2)

and "applies only complaining of

to cases brought by

injuries caused by state court judgments district court proceedings commenced and

rendered before the
inviting district
.

court review and rejection of those judgments." More simply stated,

Rooker-Peldman bars a federal proceeding

when "entertaining the federal claim would be the equivalent of an appellate review" of the state judgment. No. 0 2 -4 2 4 7 , 2005 WL 2009904, at *4 (D.N.J. Allah v. Aug. 17, 75 Whitman,

2005) (quoting POCUS v. F.3d 834, 840 (3d Cir.

Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1996))
.

Th:us,

a cause of action asserted

in federal court that ultimately seeks to vacate the decision or reasoning of a state court is barred under Rooker-Peldman. Desi's Pizza, (3d Cir. Inc. V. City of Wilkes--Barre, 321 F.3d 411, 419--20

2001) (Rooker-Feldman bars those claims that "[are] [the] state adjudication, meaning

inextricably intertwined with

that federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that
the state court was wrong.") This Court finds that the Rooker-Peldman doctrine applies here to bar this proceeding. First, Gatson admittedly lost in

his New Jersey state court proceeding which he filed seeking the

21

return of the same monies now the subject of this litigation. Second, this New Jersey state court adjudication against Gatson

occurred before Jatson filed this action in federal court.
Finally, atson is essentially asking this Court to review and Clearly then,

reect the state court adjudication acainst him. Plaintiffs'

purported claims against all of the defendants here

with respect to monies and property seized during July 2001 pursuant to validly-obtained search warrants, are "inextricably

intertwined" with the July 2008 decision of a New Jersey state court that entered summary judgment in lavor of Wayne Forrest and the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office arid against Gatson, because such claims amount to nothing more nor less than a "prohibited appeal" from the decision of the New Jersey state court. Therefore, this Court does not have subject matter

jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under the Rocker-Feldman doctrine, D. and the Complaint must be dismissed accordingly.

Section 1983 Claims of Constitutional Violations Are Untimely Next, this Court also finds that Plaintiffs' claims under 42

U.S.C.

§ 1983 and § 1985,

alleging violations of their Fifth and Fourteenth

constitutional rights under the Fourth, Amendments, are now time-barred.

Plaintiffs' exhibits show that $253, 310.00 in United States Currency was disbursed on August 24, 2001, to loannis Arvanitis and Martha Arvanitis, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:65--2, because there was no colorable dispute as to their ownership of the money. (Compl., Ex. N). 22

A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, based on a time-bar, where "the 7ime alleged in the

statement of a claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations." Construction Corp., omitted)
.

Bethel v. 1978)

Jendoco (citation

570 E'.2d 1168,

1174

(3d Cir.

Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative it is appropriate a se civil

defense which may be waived by the defendant, to dismiss sua sponte under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e) (2)

rihts claim whose untimeliness is apparent from the face of the Complaint. See, e.g., Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-15 show that the

(2007) (if the allegations of a complaint,

"for example,

relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations,

complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim"); also Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding, that sua

under former § 1915(d)

in forma pauperis provisions,

sponte dismissal prior to service of an untimely claim is appropriate since such a claim "is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory"); Hunterson v. DiSabato, 2007 WL 1771315

(3d Cir.2007) ("district court may time-barred under 28 U.S.C.

sponte dismiss a claim as where it is apparent

§ 1915(A) (b) (1)

from the complaint that the applicable limitations period has run") (citing Jones v. Hall v. Cir. Bock,

Dm0

v.

Ryan) (not precedential) ; 2001 WL 694082 (10th

Geary County Bd. 2001)

of County Comm'rs,

June 12,

(unpub..) Baker,

(aplying Pino to current § (8th Cir. 1998) (unpub.);

1915(e));

Rounds v.

141 F.3d 1170

23

0 U] Di
k<

U]

CC

U]

HC
U]

U]
U]
-

C

H-

C
LI. LI-

U]
HC CC

U]
C)
U]
H U] Di

(C U]
·

Di

U] CC
U] CC

U] CD Hhi CD Di hi hi 0

C
U]

U] Di U] C U] CD C C 0 hi U]

C U]

(C

Di H-

U] C) CC U] C) Di U] U] Di CD hi

Di

C) 0 U] HC CD

S
U] <
-

C hi < C hi U] CD HU] C) N

C C 0 hi

5
CC U]
CC U]

HU] Di U] CD H-

U] U]

HU] Di U] H0 0 U] N) C
---

U] C U] U] N) C) Di hi CD CC

U] Di C CD CC 0 C Di U]

U]

C
··

Di U]

U] C U] U] U] hi 0

U]
`

(C CD

C

CC

U] U] HC Di U] H0 C

U]
Li-

Di U]

C U]
LI-

Di C U]
U]

U]
CC

HC U] U] U] CD U] CC CC U] HCC C
k<

U] U] N) CC CD hi C

CD

HC) C
CC

C U]
CD hi Di
U]

(C 0 U] C CC U] C) C CD Di, H-C

IC tO C
U]

Di U] C
U]
U]

CC

U] <
N) U]
CD CC
-- -· ·

hi 0

HU] 0 U] CD 0 U] U] N Di C C U]
U]

<
C) N)

CD (C
0 U] H
·

HCC CC C

Di C U] H0 C CC Di C U] H0 C CC hi Di U] hi Di C hi
L<

U]

C
0 U] 0
U]

Di C C hi C Di U]

U] (C CD
<

U] CD CD C U] Di CC CC XX)

C U] CD 0 U] U] U] Di U]

CC

U]
HU] hi H0 C CD CC

C H-

(C

CD hi H0 U] U] C) C)
U]

C 0 C hi CC U] 0
hi

(C C HU] Cl)

HU] CC 0 C N)
-

H0 C CC CC 0
C hi U]

U] HC Di U] H0 C C CD U] U] CD C U] C) CD U] Di U] U] CD

U]
U] U]

C 0 C hi U] CC Di C U] H0

C
U]
<

hi CC CD U] U] CD

HU] CC 0 C

<
CC Di HU] Di

S

Di C U] H0

C)
) 0

U]
U]

C

< C) Di

CC C
C) U]
·

C CD
CC U] CC Hhi
U]
·

N) U]

U] U] Di U]

U] U] U] U]
·

U] hi CD

U]

C)

0 C U]

U]
H0 C CC

C hi hi CD C U]

C U]

CC CD

U]

C)
C U] CD U] Di hi CD

U] U]
CC CD U] U]
·

U] 0 hi
CD

U] C C
·

U]
C)
CC

CC U] Di U] CD C U] Di H(C 0
CC

H<

C) CD U] HU]

U] 0

U] Di U] CD CC

U]
C)
CD U] (C

Di hi C HDi N) U] 0 U] Di
-

hi CD U] Di hi U] HC U] U] U] HU] CD U] Di C U] U]

U] 0 C U] U]

U] C) U] 0 hi

C U]
CD

C
U]

U] C) C)

C)

U] U]

0 U]

U] CD U] CD Di U]

0 I < CD Di hi

Di hi C HDi

5

C

U]
0
<

CC U] Di U] CD U] CD hi CD
-

CD U] Di

U] U] C

U] 0 U]

5
C C)
`.

CD CD N)

LI

U] U]

U]

U]
N
CD U] U]
··

Hhi -<
·

CD
-

C
U] U] CD

U] U] CD U] CC

U]

C C hi Di

Di C U] H0 C C CC U]

C C)

Hhi

U]
U]

U] H-

U] Di U] C U]

C
C

<z
U]
N)
·

U]

U]

HU] 0 0 C U]

5
(C U]
·

0 U] U] H-

U]
CD hi

C CD U] U] CD
CC

CD hi C CD

U] U]
U]

Di hi

hi HU] U] U] CC

Di C U] H0 C CC

U] U]
CD
U] U] NC 0 U] 0

hi

U]

U]

hi CD

CD U]

U]
0
<
-,

0

U]

CD

0 Di U]

CD
U] Hhi HU] C)

C)
C 0
·

U] C) CD C)

5
C
CC

Di U]

HCD hi HCD C U]
CD U] C CC)

<

CC

HU] Di U] H0

U] CD hi CC 0 C Di U]

5
U]
CD]

0

CD

CC

`C
CD C

5 5
U]
·

U]

CD hi

C
CC

U] C) U]
-

HC
CX)
LI-

U]

CD CC U]

U]
U] ND
CD

U]
CD U] C hi NC Di C

U] CD U] CD hi

U] (3]

Di U]

CC U] Di U] CD

0 U]

U] `C
C
CC

U] 0 `C CD hi

U]
U] N U]

S
U]
C) C)

U] (C C) Di

C)

`

CC
C) C) CD
N) C) U]

U]

·

Di
· ·

U]

C
U] U] C Di C (C N) U] Di U]

CD

U]
C
CD hi (C CD

hi CC 0 CD

U]
U]
H-

U] CD hi H0

HU] Di U] H0 C CC

Di U] U] Di C CD

HC CD

U]

U]
--

CC

HC U] HU] U] HC

CD
CC
CD (C U] Di U]
·

U] CD

U]
U]

Di U] CD hi

S

U] U] Di H0

N)

U]

Di hi Di C U]

U] C CD
U] N)
U]

C
CD
-

C

0

U]

C U]
CD hi
CC
-

U] 0 hi
C) C) U]
--

U]

CD
hi HN

C 0 C CC U] HU] C U] H0

C
Di U]

`C

U] U] CD

Di C U] H0 C

U]

CC

CD hi Di CD C U] CD CC CC 0 U] NC Di
·

U]
CD
·

U]

U] HU] U]
U] U] C)

U] C) CD

CC

U] U] HC Di U] U] CD hi
CC CC

CD U] Di C U]

U] (3] C)
--

U]
U]
U] CD

U] Di U] 0
-

C) C)

Di
CC

U] C) hi U] 0 C Di U] 0 C Di U]
CD CD

U] H0 C CC

hi hi CD U] Di U] CD U]

H 0 C C CC U] H-

U]

U]

C)

Moreover,

"the accrual date of a § 1983 cause of action is a

question of federal law that is cot resolved by reference to state law." ori.ginal)
.

Waliace v.

Katc,

549 U.S.

at 358

(emphasis in

A clai.m accrues as soon as the injured party "knew or

had reason to know of the inSury that constitutes the basis of his action." 1982)
.

Sandutch v.

Muroski, Levin,

6.84

E.2d 252,

254

3d Sir. 38

See also Oshiver v. 1385 (3d Sir.

Fishbein,

Sedran & Berman,

F.3d 1380, irrelevant. known,

1994).

"Plaintiff's actual knowledge is

Rather,

the question is whether the knowledge was knowable. Moreover, the

or through reasonable diligence,

claim accrues upon knowledge of the actual injury, injury constitutes a legal wrong." 1996 WL 41621 1386). Here, (S.D. Pa. Feb. 2, Fassnacht v.

not that the

United States, 38 F.3d at

1996) (citing Oshiver,

the property at issue was seized on July 31,

2001.

The property was held by the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office during the time that Gatson was tried on burglary and receiving stolen property charges. convicted on November 5, Catson admits that he was eventually 2004, but contends that the conviction which covers

on third degree receipt of stolen property,

$75,000.00 or less,

should have allowed for the return of the 2001. Gatson filed motions in his

$256,340.00 seized on July 31,

state court criminal proceedings arguing that the search and seizure was unlawful under: the Fourth Amendment. latest, Thus, at the

Plaintiffs plainly had reason to know by November 5, 25

2004,

thac they may have had a claim for the return of their However, 2009, Plaintiffs did not file this federal

alleged property.

action until April 8, Moreover,

almost four

(4)

years later.

upon careful review of the Complaint and the many there is nothing alleged to

pages of exhibits attached thereto,

support an argument that Plaintiffs would be entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Any claim that

Plaintiffs now allege concerning the violation of rheir Fourth Amendment rights accrued when the search warrant was executed on July 31, 2001. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 389--92.

Plaintiffs allege no facts or extraordinary circumstances that would permit statutory or equitable tolling under either New Jersey or federal law. Nor do Plaintiffs plead ignorance of te

New Jersey statutes set forth certain bases for "statutory tolling." e.g., N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-21 (detailing tolling because of minority or insanity); N.J.S.A. § 2A 14--22 (detailing tolling because of nonresidency of persons liable) New Jersey law permits "equitable tolling" where "the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass," or where a plaintiff has "in some extraordinary way" been prevented from asserting his rights, or where a plaintiff has timely asserted his rights mistakenly by either defective pleading or in the wrong forum. See Freeman v. State, 347 N.J. Super. 11, 31 (citations omitted), certif. denied, 172 N.J. 178 (2002) "However, absent a showing of intentional inducement or trickery by a defendant, the doctrine of equitable tolling should be applied sparingly and only in the rare situation where it is demanded by sound legal principles as well as the interests of justice." I When state tolling rules contradict federal law or policy, in certain limited circumstances, federal courts can turn to federal tolling doctrine. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 370 (3d Cir. 2000) Under federal law, equitable tolling is appropriate in three general scenarios: (1) where a defendant actively misleads a plaintiff with respect to her cause of action; (2) where the
. .

26

law or the fact of his confinements

(neither excuse being

sufficient to relax the statute of limitations bar in this

instance)

as the basis for delay in bringing suit,

In fact,

Plaintiffs are completely silent wLth resect to the fact that their Complaint has been submitted out of time. Plaintiffs have

has not offered any explanation for their lack of diligence in pursuing this claim long after it had expired. This omission

strongly militates against equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Court finds that the § 1983 and

1985 claims alleging violations of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, must be dismissed with prejudice. are time-barred and

plaintiff has been prevented from asserting her claim as a result of other extraordinary circumstances; or (3) where the plaintiff asserts her claims in a timely manner but has done so in the wrong forum. Id. n.9.

Plaintiffs' claim of a Fifth Amendment violation more properly refers to the Fourteenth Amendment in that it raises a denial of due process with respect to the property allegedly seized unlawfully by state government officials rather than federal officers. Even if the claims were not time--barred, this Court would find that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under § 1983 for a Fourth Amendment violation. Retention of seized property may violate the Fourth Amendment if the government is unable to establish probable cause for the initial seizure. See Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 969 (2003) However, in this case, the legality of the initial seizure is not in issue as it was based on a validly obtained search warrant, an issue raised by Gatson and determined by the state court in Gatson's direct appeal from his conviction on two counts of receiving stolen property. See State v. Gatson,
.

27

E.

RICO Claims Plaintiffs also invoke federal question jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1331, broadly alleging a claim that defendants acted in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"). See 18 U.s.C. § 1962(c). Even under the most

liberal reading of the Complaint, Plaintiffs fail to identify an enterprise, or any particular acts of alleged racketeering necessary to support a civil RICO claim. Nor do Plaintiffs The allegations are

allege any pattern of racketeering activity.

based solely on the seizure of property pursuant to a lawfully obtained search warrant. Thus, the Complaint is completely

devoid of any particularized factual allegations necessary to support the statutory requirements of a RICO claim. Accordingly,

because Plaintiffs do not allege the necessary factual basis to

2007 WI 3196298 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 1, 2007). Likewise, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Plaintiffs had an adequate post-deprivation of property remedy available to them, namely, a replevin action, which Gatson had filed, but was ultimately unsuccessful. It is further noted, that on August 8, 2008, the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office wrote to Gatson informing him that arrangements could be made by him or someone on his behalf to take custody of the Bayliner boat and $8,938.00 seized during their investigation of Gatson. It is not clear from the Complaint whether Plaintiffs made such arrangements. Of course, the $253,310.00 was returned to the Arvanitises from whom the money was taken during a burglary after it was determined that there was no dispute that the money belonged to them. Finally, Plaintiffs asserts a bald claim of an Eighth Amendment violation. However, there appears to be no basis for an Eighth Amendment violation because Plaintiffs were not assessed any storage costs or excessive fines with respect to the property seized. 28

raise a viable claim under the RICO statute, be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. F. § 1915A(b) (1)

the Complaint will

Remaining State Law Claims Finally, to the extent that Plaintiffs may be alleging

claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and other tort actions, these claims are state common law tort claims, over

which this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction,
because there are no claims pending in this action over which

this Court has original jurisdiction. § 1367 (c) (3). V. Therefore, CONCLUSION

28 U.S.C.

for the reasons set forth above,

the Complaint with respect and

will be dismissed with prejudice, to all defendants,

in its entirety,

for failure to state a claim at this time,

because it seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief,
(iii)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. and (2)
.

§B 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii), applications for are denied as

and 1915A(b) (1)

Plaintiffs'

appointment of counsel moot.

(docket entry nos.

2 and 3)

An appropriate order follows.

/

Dated:

/

SANLEY R. CHESLER United States District Judge

29