DELBRIDGE v. THOMAS et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 6/4/2018. (JB, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANTHONY DELBRIDGE,
Civil Action No. 18-9707 (JLL)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
K. ANTHONY THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants.
LINARES. Chief District Judge:
Currently before the Court is the complaint (ECF No. 1) and application to proceed in
forma pauperis (Document 1-2 attached to ECF No. 1) of Plaintiff Anthony Deibridge raising
claims against his Federal Public Defender and an Assistant United States Attorney involved in
his violation of supervised release proceedings. Based on Plaintiff’s application, it is clear that
leave to proceed in forma pauperis is warranted in this matter, and the Court will therefore grant
Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis. As the Court is granting Plaintiff inforina
pauperis status in this matter, the Court is required to screen his complaint pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to the statute, this Court must dismiss Plaintiffs claims if they are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek damages from a defendant who is
immune. For the reasons set forth below, this Court will dismiss Plaintiffs complaint without
prejudice in its entirety.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff, Anthony Delbridge, was arrested for violating his tern’ of
supervised release following his arrest on felony charges in New Jersey. (See Docket No. 07-210
at ECF Nos. 25-28). On May 20, 2015, however, Plaintiffs pending federal violation matter was
stayed pending the outcome of his state court charges.
(Docket No. 07-210 at ECF No. 31).
While Plaintiff was placed on 24-hour home confinement for a time (see Docket No. 07-210 at
ECF No. 32), following new state court charges, Plaintiff was once again arrested, arraigned, and
placed into federal custody.
(Docket No. 07-2 10 at ECF No. 35).
Plaintiff has remained
detained since that time, awaiting his final hearing on his supervised release violation. (Docket
No. 07-2 10 at ECF No. 39).
On or about May 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed his current complaint. (ECF No. 1). In his
complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to his violation
matter made “false statements” to the Magistrate Judge at his April 2, 2018, bail hearing to prevent
his release. (ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff asserts that these statements resulted in his- being held
“past [his] violation time” because he has allegedly been detained for a total of 23 months while
his violation matter has been pending. despite the fact that he alleges that his maximum potential
sentence for his violation is eight to fourteen months. (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff essentially contends
that this amounts to his being falsely imprisoned by the Government. (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges
that his Federal Public Defender failed to meet with him and has largely ignored him, and that his
attorney therefore also denied him his right to release. (Id. at 6).
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134,
§S 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 prisoner is proceeding in forma
pauperis, see
damages from a state employee, see 2$ U.S.C.
2$ U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), or seeks
§ 1915A. The PLRA directs district courts to sue
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
situ sponte
screening for dismissal under 2$ U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) because
Plaintiff has been granted in forma pattperis status.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft
1’.
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 Belt Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
To survive situ sponte screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must allege “sufficient
factual matter” to show that the claim is facially plausible. fovt’ter i. UPIt’IC Shadvside, 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.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dernpster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3
“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).” Schrectne 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)); Cottrteau v. United States, 287 F. App’x
159, 162 (3d Cir. 200$) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
(3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 678). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally
construed. “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.”
Ma/a v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (italics
added).
B.
Analysis
In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks to raise claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents oft/ic federal Bureatt of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 38$ (1971), for alleged violations of his
rights. “To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of
a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States that was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law.” Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 806 (3d Cir. 2000); see also
Woodvardv. Ct-v. of Essex, 514 F. App’x 177, 180 (3d Cir. 2013) (section 1983 provides “private
citizens with a means to redress violations of federal law committed by state [actors]”). “A Bivens
action
.
.
.
is the federal equivalent of the
§ 1983 cause of action against state actors. [it] will lie
where the defendant has violated the plaintiffs rights under color of federal law,” and the same
legal principles and analyses apply to a federal actor under Bivens as would apply under
§ 1983
for a state actor. Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 800 (3d Cir. 2001). “The first step
in evaluating a section 1983 [or Bñ’ens] claim is to ‘identify the exact contours of the underlying
right said to have been violated’ and to determine ‘whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation
of a constitutional right at all.” ATicini. 212 F.3d at $06 (quoting Ct-v. of Sacramento v. Lewis,
523 U.S. $33, $41 n. 5 (1998)).
4
In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks to raise claims against his Federal Public Defender and the
Assistant United States Attorney assigned to his pending violation of supervised release charges.
Specifically, Plaintiff attempts to assert that he has been held beyond his maximum sentence time
pursuant to his violation of supervised release as a result of the Assistant United States Attorney’s
actions at an April 2018 bail hearing. Although Plaintiff refers to his claim as one for false
imprisonment, because his claim arises out of actions taken after Plaintiff was held over pursuant
to legal process
—
i.e., statements made at and after his bail hearing
—
his claim would actually be
one for malicious prosecution. See, e.g., Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389-90 (2007) (false
imprisonment only applies to claims that one is being held withott’t legal process, while malicious
prosecution applies to claims that one is being wrongfully held pursuant to the u’rongficl institution
of legal process). A malicious prosecution claim under Bii’ens, however, could only succeed if
Plaintiff could show that his violation proceedings had terminated in his favor. See Halsey v.
Pfetffer, 750 F.3d 273, 296-97 (3d Cir. 2014). As Plaintiffs final violation hearing has not yet
occurred, he cannot make this showing, and his malicious prosecution claim must therefore be
dismissed
2
Turning to the federal Public Defender, Defendant Thomas, Plaintiff seeks to make claims
against his criminal defense attorney. Criminal defense attorneys, including “public defenders
2
Additionally, the Court notes that prosecutors are generally immune for actions taken in
connection with the initiation and pursuit of criminal prosecution. See, e.g., Imbler v. Pachtrnan,
424 U.S. 409, 410 (1976); see also LeBlanc v. Stedman, 483 F. App’x 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2012).
As the conduct in question here making statements as part of an adversarial bail proceeding
appears to be a purely prosecutorial action, Defendant A.U.S.A. Mary Toscano is likely entitled to
immunity from suit for the conduct about which Plaintiff complains even if he could show
favorable termination.
—
—
5
and court-appointed counsel acting within the scope of their professional duties are absolutely
immune from civil liability” under either
§ 1983 or Bivens. Walker v. Pennsylvania, 5$0 F. App’x
75, 78 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Black e. Bayer, 672 F.2d 309, 320 (3d Cir. 1982), abrogated on
other grottnds by D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Voc. Tech. Sc/i., 972 F.2d 1364, 1368 n. 7 (3d Cir.
1992)). Even those defense attorneys employed by the federal or state government enjoy this
immunity because defense counsel “does not act under color of state [or federal] law when
performing a lawyer’s traditional functions.” Folk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981). As
Plaintiffs claims against Thomas arise solely out of actions or inactions taken by Thomas as
Plaintiffs defense attorney, he is not a federal actor for the purposes of this Bivens matter, and
Plaintiffs claims against him must be dismissed.
Plaintiffs complaint must therefore be
dismissed without prejudice in its entirety.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED and his complaint shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety. An
appropriate order follows.
Judge, United States District Court
Dated: June 4, 2018
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?