CAMPOS et al v. NEW CLUB 15 INC.
Filing
21
OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 9/24/18. (cm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RANDELL ALBERT HOPKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN DANIEL PAMARO, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 17-6626 (JMV/JBC)
OPINION
VAZQUEZ, District Judge:
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Randell Albert Hopkins (“Plaintiff”) seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Based on his affidavit of indigence (ECF No. 1-1),
the Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered the Clerk to
file the Complaint. (ECF No. 2.)
At this time, the Court must review Plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, because it fails
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, Plaintiff’s Complaint
is dismissed without prejudice.
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is confined at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California.
The factual allegations in his Complaint consist of a series of run-on sentences which are difficult
to understand. (See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at PageID: 6.) The caption of Plaintiff’s Complaint
identifies the following Defendants: (1) Warden Daniel Pamaro; (2) Community Hospital
Disabilities Criticism Contents; and (3) Criticism Hospital Disorders Criticism Contents Account
Payable. (Id. at Page ID: 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “facilitated white collar fraud
crimes and felony [sic] fraud schemes” with his personal information (id. at Page ID: 1.), which
represents the only clear allegation within the Complaint, and the Court construes this allegation
as true for purposes of this Opinion.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-
66 to 1321-77 (Apr. 26, 1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review complaints in those civil
actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks
redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim
with respect to prison conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts to sua
sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(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)); see also Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F. App’x
230, 232 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l)); Courteau v. United States, 287 F.
App’x. 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). Thus, to survive the Court’s
screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must allege ‘sufficient factual matter’ to show
that the claim is facially plausible. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.
2
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 for the misconduct
alleged.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “[A] pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
Nevertheless, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a
claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).).
IV.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff apparently brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim for
relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Malleus v. George,
641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). The series of rambling and largely confusing allegations set
forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint do not support a cause of action under this statute. There are no
plausible facts alleged in the Complaint which substantiate Plaintiff’s bare assertion that
Defendants used his personal information to “facilitate[] white collar fraud crimes and felony [sic]
fraud schemes[.]” (ECF No. 1 at PageID: 4.) Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint did contain factual
content that would allow the Court to reasonably infer that Defendants are liable for that alleged
misconduct – and he has not – there is nothing in the Complaint which suggests that these actions
were done “under color of state law.” Plaintiff likewise fails to identify any specific right secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States that was violated. The Court will therefore
3
dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
V.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. Although the Court has real
concerns that any amended pleading would be futile, Plaintiff shall nevertheless be given the
opportunity to file a proposed amended complaint, should he elect to do so, that shall also be
subject to screening. 1 An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
Date: September 24, 2018
At Newark, New Jersey
s/ John Michael Vazquez
JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ
United States District Judge
1
Plaintiff should note that when an amended complaint is filed, it supersedes the original and
renders it of no legal effect, unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the
earlier pleading. See West Run Student Housing Associates, LLC v. Huntington National Bank,
712 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2013)(collecting cases); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2008). To avoid confusion, the safer
practice is to submit an amended complaint that is complete in itself. Wright & Miller, supra, at
§ 1476.
4
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?