GASKINS et al v. TRUMP
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 08/29/2018. (ek)
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________
DAVID GASKINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 18-0459 (ES)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
________________________:
SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
It appearing that:
1.
Plaintiffs David Gaskins, “A.K.A. Divine,” Willie Lawson and Kevin Williams,
prisoners at East Jersey State Prison in Rahway, New Jersey at the time of filing, are seeking to
bring this action in forma pauperis (“IFP”). As discussed below, there are several issues with this
filing.
2. At the outset, where more than one pro se party seeks to join in a complaint against a
government official or entity, the plaintiffs may prepay a single $400.00 filing fee or seek in forma
pauperis status. See Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 150 (3d Cir. 2009); Miller v. New Jersey,
No. 13–2018, 2013 WL 2149692, at *2 (D.N.J. May 16, 2013) (citations omitted). In the event
that multiple pro se parties seek to join as plaintiffs and they do not prepay the $400 filing fee,
then each plaintiff must submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis if he desires
the complaint to be filed on his behalf. See Hagan, 570 F.3d at 154–55; Alford v. Wojchiechowicz,
No. 15–6750, 2015 WL 5771616, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2015) (explaining same). A $3501 filing
fee will be collected in monthly installments from each plaintiff who is granted in forma pauperis
status. Hagan, 570 F.3d at 155–56.
3. Here, Mr. Gaskins is the only Plaintiff who has submitted an IFP application, which
the Court will grant. Because the remaining Plaintiffs have not submitted IFP applications, the
Court will instruct the Clerk of the Court to terminate the additional Plaintiffs listed in the caption
until such time that they each submit a complete IFP application and sign any amended complaint
in this action.
4. At this time, the Court must review the Complaint (D.E. No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”)),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, 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.
5. Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 132166 to 1321-77 (April 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. This
action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding as indigent.
1
A prisoner-plaintiff who is pursuing his case in forma pauperis is not required to pay the $50 administrative
fee.
2
6. According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “a pleading that
offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.’” 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,2 the complaint must 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 for the misconduct alleged.” Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc., 708 F.3d
470, 483 n.17 (3d Cir. 2012) (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 complaints to
support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted) (emphasis added).
7. 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, a plaintiff must allege, first, the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that the alleged deprivation
“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));
Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F. App’x 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 42 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)).
2
3
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).
8. In addition, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1).
The purpose of this rule is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)). “[D]ismissal for violation of Rule 8 ‘is usually confined to instances in which the
complaint is so verbose, confused and redundant that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.’”
Bhatt v. Hoffman, 716 F. App’x 124, 127 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Hearns v. San Bernardino Police
Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008)).
9. Here, the Complaint consists of approximately one thousand pages, hundreds of which
contain nothing but string citations to case law, secondary sources and Bible verses.3 He names
nearly two hundred defendants, and despite the Complaint’s length, he makes no real factual
allegations against any of them. Defendants would be unable to discern any claims against them
from the Complaint as it currently stands.
10. This Court will accordingly dismiss the Complaint for failure to comply with Rule
8(a)(2). The dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint, within 30 days
of the date of the entry of the Order accompanying this Opinion, which sets forth a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
3
While the Complaint does contain some page numbers, it is not consecutively paginated and the Court has
estimated the length to the best of its ability.
4
11. Even if the Complaint was not dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8, the Court
would nevertheless still dismiss it for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff purports to bring this
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1981, 1985, 1331, 1986, 1340 and 18 U.S.C. § 2425.
(Compl. ¶ 1a). In the facts section of the form Complaint, Plaintiff states only the following:
8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, doctrine obligation,
moral turpitude, abuse of rights doctrine actionable per quod,
actionable per se, adverse domination doctrine, civil investigation
demand, equitable wrongs, libel and slander, actual malice, actual
fraud, conspiracy to entrapment, willful misconduct, malicious
intent.
(Comp. ¶ 6).
12. In the additional pages of the Complaint, Plaintiff essentially re-states a variation of
the following against each of the nearly two hundred defendants:
Conspiracy to commit fraud as he chose to be apart [sic] of the
prison slavery agreement throughout America.
$53,681 to
incarcerate a single individual in New Jersey prison each year. Peon
to the master. As stated by Huff, in peonage of debt slavery in the
land of the free, from which state officials and members of the
United States Congress continued to gain a debt of peonage from
convicted felons. Defendant participates in the following, violating
the plaintiffs in this case New Jersey Constitutional rights Federal
Constitutional rights, and United States Constitutional rights,
violated, as well as state and local tort laws. Plaintiffs bring this
action as an attempt to obtain a remedy resolution to their problems
through the courts. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter and venue is proper. This action is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983, 1985, 1331 and 18 U.S.C. 2425 New Jersey Discrimination
Act.
Plaintiffs have exhausted all available administrative
remedies and cannot find a remedy in which to resolve these
unlawful iniquities as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs also
infer that defendant is in violation of the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871
[American Civil Remedies Act] Act. 17. Stat. 13. Plaintiffs bring
suit in the matter complained of, suing this particular defendant in
both individual and official capacity. Wherefore the plaintiffs
request the following relief: actual damages, punitive damages,
absolute liability, de factor government, de factor officers,
defamation, libel and slander. For this case the amount of googol
5
“10100”,
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,0 coined at the age of nine by Milton Sirotta, nephew of
Edward Kasner [1878-1955] Amer, mathematician.
13. In the Relief section of the form Complaint, Plaintiff states the following:
We want the Court to consider this action as one for habeas relief
where the goal is to challenge validity of incarceration. Please
release us immediately. We would ask the Court to grant us
sovereign and diplomatic immunity privileges. We ask the Court
to grant us monetary reward for the damages stated in the body of
this arguement [sic].
Absolute liability. Repeal the 13th
Amendment in the United States Constitution.
(Compl. ¶ 7).
14. Plaintiff’s Complaint is entirely devoid of facts which would suggest that any of the
named defendants have violated his constitutional rights in any way. The Complaint contains
only allegations that are conclusory, incomprehensible, repetitive and without any substance
whatsoever. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently state a claim against any of the Defendants.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
15. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking release from confinement, a civil rights
complaint is not the appropriate vehicle to do so. Instead, he must file a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973) (“[H]abeas corpus is the appropriate
remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement.”);
Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that “whenever the challenge
ultimately attacks the ‘core of habeas’—the validity of the continued conviction or the fact or
length of the sentence—a challenge, however denominated and regardless of the relief sought,
must be brought by way of a habeas corpus petition”).
6
16. Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A. Because it is conceivable that Plaintiff may be
able to supplement his pleading with facts sufficient to overcome the deficiencies noted herein, the
Court will grant Plaintiff leave to move to re-open this case and to file an amended complaint.
17. An appropriate order follows.
s/Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.
7
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?