SLAUGHTER v. PERRY et al
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 10/12/12. (jd, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHARLES S.
SLAUGHTER,
Civil Action No.
12-2577
(WJM)
Plaintiff,
:
V.
DALE K.
PERRY,
OPINION
et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
Plaintiff pQ
Charles S. Slaughter
786227/491769
8 Production Way 8L
Avenel, New Jersey 07001
MARTINI, District Judge
Plaintiff Charles S.
Slaughter,
a prisoner confined at the
Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel,
New Jersey,
seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 42
U.S.C.
§ 1983,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
Based on his affidavit of indigence and the absence of three
qualifying dismissals within 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g),
grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)
the Court will
forma pauperis
and order the Clerk of the Court
to file the Complaint.
At this time,
the Court must review the Complaint to
determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or
malicious,
granted,
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief.
I.
BACKGROUND
The following factual allegations are taken from Plaintiff’s
Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of this review.
Plaintiff states that his First,
Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendment
rights were violated because he did not receive documents
pursuant to his request for materials under the Open Public
Records Act
(OPRA).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Perry,
as
an “OPRA Custodian,” denied Plaintiff’s request for documents.
Plaintiff states that in June of 2010,
the Superior Court,
Appellate Division reversed a decision of the Government Records
Council
(GRC)
to deny Plaintiff’s OPRA request.’
on November 19,
2011,
Plaintiff then,
resubmitted his OPRA request,
ultimately sent to Defendant Perry.
which was
That request was denied.
Plaintiff filed a motion in state court on December 28,
2011
to challenge the denial of his most recent OPRA request and to
compel the release of the requested documents.
denied on February 7,
2012.
That motion was
Thereafter Plaintiff appealed the
‘The Court notes that while the decision referred to by
Plaintiff, Slaughter v. Government Records Council, 413 N.J.
Super 544, 997 A.2d 235 (N.J.Super.A.D. June 4, 2010), resulted
in a reversal, the effectiveness of the decision was delayed
until November 5, 2010.
2
denial of the motion;
appeal on April 3,
the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied the
2012.
Plaintiff now brings this lawsuit against Defendants “Dale
K.
Perry,
OPRA Custodian,”
“Stuart Rabner,
“Jose L.
Chief Justice,
N.J.S.C.”
in the amount of $2,250,000.00,
Additionally,
Fuentes,
P.J.A.D.,” and
Plaintiff seeks damages
plus court costs and filing fees.
Plaintiff seeks a court order to release the
requested documents.
II.
A.
Standards for a
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Sponte Dismissal
The Prison Litigation Reform Act,
801—810,
110 Stat.
1321—66 to 1321—77
Pub.
L. No.
(April 26,
104-134,
1996),
§
requires
a district court to review a complaint in a civil action in which
a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or seeks redress
against a governmental employee or entity.
to identify cognizable claims and to
that is frivolous,
malicious,
relief may be granted,
§ 1915A(b)
.
sponte dismiss any claim
fails to state a claim upon which
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C.
The Court is required
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) (2) (B);
This action is subject to
screening for dismissal under both 28 U.S.C.
.
sponte
§ 1915(e) (2) (B)
1915A because Plaintiff is proceeding as an indigent and is a
prisoner.
3
and
In determining the sufficiency of a p se complaint,
the
Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff.
Erickson v.
Pardus,
(following Estelle v.
Gamble,
United States v.
969 F.2d 39,
Day,
551 U.S.
429 U.S.
97,
42
89,
106
(3d Cir.
93—94
(2007)
(1976));
also
1992)
The supreme Court refined the standard for summary dismissal
of a complaint that fails to state a claim in Ashcroft v.
556 U.S.
662
The Court examined Rule 8(a) (2)
(2009).
Iqbal,
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.”
8(a) (2).
550 U.S.
offers
Fed.
that,
Civ.
Citing its opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
544
(2007)
for the proposition that
‘labels and conclusions’
or
(quoting Twombly,
550 U.S.
at 555),
to prevent a summary dismissal,
allege “sufficient factual matter”
facially plausible.
“[aj
P.
Twombly,
pleading that
‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do,’”
1949
R.
Iqbal,
129 5.
Ct.
at
the Supreme Court held
a civil complaint must now
to show that the claim is
This then “allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”
(3d Cir.
Fowler v.
2009) (citing Iqbal,
UPMC Shadyside,
129 S.
Ct.
578 F.3d 203,
210
at 1948)
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Iqbal emphasizes that a
plaintiff must demonstrate that the allegations of his complaint
4
are plausible.
Twombly,
See Iqbal,
505 U.S.
643 F.3d 77,
84
at 555,
(3d Cir.
129 S.
Ct.
at 1949-50.
& n.3; Warren Gen.
2011).
Hosp.
211
such an entitlement with its facts.”
(citing Phillips v.
(3d Cir.
B.
Amgen Inc.,
V.
“A complaint must do more than
allege the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief.
‘show’
also
County of Allegheny,
A complaint has to
Fowler,
578 F.3d at
515 F.3d 224,
234—35
2008)).
Section 1983 Actions
A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.
§
1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights.
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
...
Thus,
to state a claim for relief under § 1983,
allege,
first,
a plaintiff must
the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and,
second,
that the
alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting
under color of state law.
(1988)
1994)
;
;
Piecknick v.
Malleus v.
See West v.
Pennsylvania,
George,
487 U.S.
36 F.3d 1250,
641 F.3d 560,
5
Atkins,
563
1255—56
(3d Cir.
42,
48
(3d Cir.
2011)
III.
A.
DISCUSSION
Dismissal as against Defendants Fuentes and Rabner
Defendants Hudson County Superior Court Judge Jose L.
Fuentes and New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner
should be dismissed from this matter as they are judicial
officers who are immune from suit under these circumstances.
Generally,
a judicial officer in the performance of his or her
duties has absolute immunity from suit.
Mireles v.
U.S.
(1991).
9,
12,
112 S.Ct.
286,
116 L.Ed.2d 9
Waco,
502
Judicial
immunity is absolute and cannot be overcome by allegations of bad
faith or malice.
at 11.
Rather,
the only two exceptions to
judicial immunity are for non-judicial actions or for a judicial
action taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.
“Whether an act by a judge is
nature of the act itself,
‘judicial’
one relate[s)
to the
i.e., whether it is a function normally
performed by a judge,
and to the expectations of parties.”
v.
349,
Sparkman,
(1978).
435 U.S.
Here,
362,
98 S.Ct.
1099,
Stump
55 L.Ed.2d 331
the actions of Defendant Fuentes and Rabner
complained of by Plaintiff are judicial in nature and as such
protected by judicial immunity.
Further,
to the extent that Plaintiff seeks review of
judicial decisions already rendered and attempts to use this
Complaint as an attempt for reconsideration or further appeal of
the state court judgments,
this Court lacks subject matter
6
jurisdiction to entertain such requests.
The Rooker-Feldman
2
doctrine recognizes that a litigant who was unsuccessful in a
state court proceeding cannot seek review of those proceedings by
a federal district court.
Middlebrook at Monmouth v.
F. App’x 284,
2011).
285
(3d Cir.
Liban,
419
The doctrine thus bars this
Court from reviewing or overturning the prior rulings in state
court.
B.
Dismissal as against Defendant Perry
As to Defendant Perry,
Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon
which relief may be granted here.
As noted above,
entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983,
in order to be
a plaintiff must
allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States and that the alleged deprivation was
committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law.
Here,
Defendant Perry’s actions to deny Plaintiff’s OPRA
request cannot be shown to have violated any constitutional
standards.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not trigger any federal
rights and as such the complaint must be dismissed.
The
2
263 U.S.
Columbia
1303, 75
doctrine is derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and District of
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)
7
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
the Complaint will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
An appropriate order
follows.
Unite
Dated:
8
J. MART INI
ates District Judge
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?