SANCHEZ v. CIDAMBI et al
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 4/20/2015. (ld, )
*NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FRANK SANCHEZ,
Civil Action No. 14-7093 (JLL)
Plaintiff,
v.
:
OPINION
INDRA CIDAMBI, et al.,
Defendants.
LINARES, District Judge:
Plaintiff, Frank Sanchez, filed a complaint against Defendants, Indra Cidam
bi and Patrick
Madden, on November 12, 2014.
(ECF No. 1).
On March 13, 2015, this Court granted
Plaintiffs application to proceed informa pauperis. (ECF No. 2). At this
time, the Court must
review the Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 191 5(e)(2)(B) to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted,
or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejud
ice.
I.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from the allegations contained in
Plaintiffs complaint.
(ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff is currently civilly committed to the East Jersey State
Prison Special
Treatment Unit (STU) in Avenel, New Jersey, pursuant to the New Jersey Sexually Violen
t
Predator (“SVP”) Act, N.J. Stat. Ann.
§ 30:4-27.24 et seq. (ECF No. 1 at 6). Defendant Indra
Cidambi is a doctor employed by the STU who provides forensic psychic evalua
tions on behalf of
the New Jersey Department of Human Services during the periodic review hearing
s provided to
SVPs as part of their commitments.
(See Id. at 4, 6; Document I attached to ECF No. 1).
Defendant Patrick Madden is an attorney with New Jersey’s Public Defend
er who represented
Plaintiff in his 2014 review hearing. (ECF No. I at 7).
Plaintiffs claims against these Defendants arise out of the report Dr. Cidambi
filed during
Plaintiff’s 2014 review hearing. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Cidambi, in her
July 2014 report in
support of Plaintiffs continued commitment, included information of anothe
r, similarly named
individual who is also committed to the STU. (Id. at 6). Specifically, Plainti
ff alleges that the
doctor’s report included information which stated that Plaintiff had admitted “expos
ing himself by
standing at the doorway of his room with his pants down while looking into
the group room” while
on a Modified Activities Program (MAP) status.’ (Id.; Document 1 Attach
ed to ECF No. 1 at 8).
The report, including this statement, was entered into evidence during Plainti
ffs review hearing,
and Dr. Cidambi testified at that hearing. (Id. at 6-7).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Madden was aware that this one line
of information was
improperly placed in Plaintiffs report. (ECF No. I at 7). Plaintiff states
that Madden did not
object to this information in the report, and instead entered the report
into evidence as part of
Although Plaintiff claims that the report states that he had been caught
masturbating while on
MAP status, the report appears to contain no such allegation. The Court
therefore assumes that
Plaintiff is referring to the quoted section of the report. (ECF No. 1
at 6).
2
Plaintiff’s file at the hearing.
(Id.).
Plaintiff alleges that Madden also failed to object to a
statement by the judge that Plaintiff had not learned his lesson during the hearing. (Id.).
Plaintiff
states that Madden’s failure to object to the admission of the report amounts to a conflic
t of interest
and a failure of Madden to keep Plaintiff’s best interests in mind while representing
him. (Id.).
Plaintiff also provides documentation that there is no record of him ever having been
placed
on MAP status while at the STU. (Document I attached to ECF No. 1 at 1). Plainti
ff also states,
however, that after Plaintiff’s review hearing, the discrepancy was brought to
Dr. Cidambi’s
attention. (ECF No. I at 6). When the doctor was made aware of the issue, “Dr.
Indra Cidambi
sent a letter to the court correcting her report.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that
based upon these
allegations, the doctor is liable to him for her “falsified” report, and Madden
for his conflict of
interest.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134,
§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66
to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review complaints
in those civil actions
in which a plaintiff is proceeding informa pauperis, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The PLRA
directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is
malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief maybe granted, or seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune
from such relief This action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismis
sal under 28 U.S.C.
§
1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff has been granted informapauperis status.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “a pleadin
g that offers
‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do.”
3
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007)).
To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a claim the complaint must
,
2
allege “sufficient
factual matter” to show that the claim is facially plausible. Fowler v. UPMS
Shadyside, 578 F.3d
203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is
liable fbr the misconduct alleged.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster,
764 F.3d 303, 308 (3d
Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally
construed, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their compl
aints to support a claim.”
Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citatio
n omitted) (emphasis
added).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s complaint does not clarify what type of claim Plaintiff seeks
to raise. Although
Plaintiff writes “N/A” in the box which would indicate that his claim
is brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C.
§ 1983, the Court can discern no other federal cause of action which would encompass the
allegations Plaintiff has asserted in his complaint. Section 1983 provid
es “private citizens with a
means to redress violations of federal law committed by state [actors
).” Woodyard v. Cnty. Of
Essex, 514 F. App’x 177, 180 (3d Cir. 2014). To assert a claim under
the statute, a plaintiff must
2
“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state
a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 191 5(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122
(3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v.
Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)); Mitchell v. Beard,
492 F. App’x 230, 232 (3d Cir.
2012) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)); Courteau v. United
States, 287 F. App’x 159, 162 (3d
Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
4
allege that he was deprived of a federal statutory or constitutional right by an individ
ual acting
under color of state law. Id. As part of its evaluation of a plaintiffs claim, a court
must identify
the contours of the right the plaintiff claims has been violated and determine
if a violation of that
right has been pled at all. Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 806 (3d Cir. 2000).
Although it is not
clear what rights Plaintiff is claiming have been violated by the actions of
Dr. Cidambi or his
lawyer at his commitment review hearing, the Court presumes that Plainti
ff is trying to assert a
variation of a claim that his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights
were violated when the
challenged sentence in the report was provided to the trial court and subseq
uently admitted into
evidence, a claim which would arise out of 1983.
Plaintiffs apparent
§ 1983 claim against Dr. Cidambi appears to be grounded in the fact
that she negligently included in his report an event which had not involved Plainti
ff, but rather a
similarly named individual. What Plaintiff is therefore effectively pleadin
g, is that Dr. Cidambi
was negligent. Negligence, however, is not actionable under
§ 1983. See Wright v. Warden,
Forest SCI, 582 F. App’x 136, 138 (3d Cir. 2014); see also Davidson
v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344,
347-48 (1986) (“the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
is not implicated by the
lack of due care of an official causing unintended injury to life, liberty, or
property”). Plaintiffs
claim against the doctor must therefore be dismissed.
The second Defendant against whom Plaintiff makes claims is Patrick
Madden, the Public
Defender who represented him at his review hearing. “{P]ublic defend
ers and court-appointed
counsel acting within the scope of their professional duties are
absolutely immune from civil
liability under
§ 1983.” Walker v. Pennsylvania, 580 F. App’x 75, 78 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting
Black v, Bayer, 672 F.2d 309, 320 (3d Cir. 1982), abrogated on other
grounds by D.R. v. Middle
5
Bucks Area Voc. Tech. Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1368 n. 7 (3d Cir. 1992)). This is so because a public
defender “does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functio
ns.”
Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981). Defendant Madden is therefore
immune to suit
and the claims against him must also be dismissed. As Plaintiff’s claims against both Defend
ants
must be dismissed, his complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on
which relief can
be granted.
3
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejud
ice.
As Plaintiffs complaint did not make the nature of his claims clear and out of an abunda
nce of
caution, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint within thirty (30) days.
An appropriate
order follows.
I
Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J.
4
To the extent that Plaintiffs complaint is intended to also raise state law
claims, such as legal
malpractice against Defendant Madden, or a negligence claim as to Defend
ant Cidambi, this Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims as the
Court has dismissed the
only federal claim it can discern from Plaintiffs complaint over which
the Court would have
originaijurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
6
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?