ROGERS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 35

OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 7/18/17. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

THOMAS ROGERS,
Plaintff

Civil Action No. 16-08870
OPINION

V.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY and MAN WITH NJ
STATE TROOPER ID 7789,
Defendants.

John Michael Vazcjuez, U.S.D.J.
I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants the State of New Jersey and “Man” with
NJ State Trooper ID 7789’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. The Court reviewed all submissions made in support and in opposition to the motion, and
considered the motion without oral argument pursuant to L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons that
follow, Defendants’ motion is granted.
II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Pro se Plaintiffs one-page Complaint1 alleges that Defendants “made false claims

.

against [him] and took [his] property,” which Plaintiff identifies as a 2004 Chevrolet Malibu.

Some of the allegations in the Complaint are not entirely clear to the Court. For instance, Plaintiff
pleads that he is “an American State National by birthright,” but that he is “not now nor was [he]
ever a federal citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the ‘United States.” Compi. Plaintiff also states
that “the causal agent comes by bills of attainder and theft of property.” Id.

Compl. (D.E. 1). Plaintiff alleges that these “false claims did and do harm and injury to [his] good
name, freedom, and property.” Id. Plaintiff requests “the immediate return of [his] property” and
“compensation in the amount of $250,000.” Id. Plaintiff also requests “a permanent restraining
order against the State of New Jersey and any man or woman holding office under the United
States from further interference with [his] rights.” Id.
Defendants filed the current motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff failed to plausibly
plead a cognizable cause of action. D.E. 20. Plaintiff opposed the motion. D.E. 23. Plaintiffs
opposition, however, does not substantively address Defendants’ motion.
LAW AND ANALYSIS

III.

According to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court should dismiss
a complaint when it fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In analyzing a motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court will “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable
reading of the complaint, the plaintiff maybe entitled to relief.” Phillips v. Cty. ofAllegheny, 515
f.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d
Cir. 2002).
To survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Ad. Corp. v. Twornbly, 550 U.S. 544. 570 (2007)). Determining whether a complaint
is plausible is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. While not a “probability requirement,” plausibility
means “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 67$. “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

2

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Even if plausibly
pled, however, a complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss if the facts alleged do not state
“a legally cognizable cause of action.” Turner v. IF. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 14-7148, 2015
WL 12826480, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 23, 2015). Additionally, a court is “not compelled to accept
unwarranted inferences, unsupported conclusions or legal conclusions disguised as factual
allegations.” Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 f.3d 187, 211 (3d Cir. 2007).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro Se, the Court construes the pleadings liberally and
holds them to a less stringent standard than those filed by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.s.
519, 520 (1972). “The Court need not, however, credit a pro se plaintiffs ‘bald assertions’ or

‘legal conclusions.” D ‘Agostino v. ECOM RDEC, No. 10-4558, 2010 WL 3719623, at *1
(D.N.J. Sept. 14, 2010) (citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 f.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.
1997)).
Here, Plaintiffs Complaint does not plausibly plead a cause of action. Plaintiff does not
identify the legal theory or theories under which he is proceeding. To this end, the Court is unable
to ascertain whether Plaintiff plausibly pleads the elements necessary to state a claim. Although
it appears that a police officer filed a complaint against Plaintiff and that Plaintiffs car was taken
from him, it is not clear how these actions violated Plaintiffs rights. Moreover, Plaintiff does not
plead the underlying facts describing how these events took place.

For these reasons, the

Complaint fails to plausibly state a claim.2

2

Although not raised by Defendants, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not specify the basis for
the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 77 (3d
Cir. 2003) (stating that “the court can raise sua sponte subject-matter jurisdiction concerns”). If
Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he must indicate why this Court may properly exercise
jurisdiction over the causes of action alleged.
3

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion is granted. The Complaint is dismissed
without prejudice. Within forty-five days of this Opinion, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
addressing the deficiencies noted herein.3 If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within
that time, this case will be dismissed with prejudice, which means that Plaintiff will not be able to
sue Defendants in the future for the conduct complained of in Plaintiffs Complaint.

An

appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
Dated: July 18, 2017

CQ

John Michael Vazquez, T€,&D.YJ

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint it shall comport with Local Civil Rule 15.1, which
effective May 10, 2017, states that:
a party who files an amended pleading in response to an Order
authorizing the filing of that pleading to cure a defect in its pleading
shall file:
(1) a copy of the amended pleading, complete with a handwritten or
electronic signature;
and
(2) a fonTi of the amended pleading that shall indicate in what
respect(s) it differs from the pleading that it amends, by bracketing
or striking through materials to be deleted and underlining materials
to be added.
4