COLEMAN v. LONG BRANCH POLICE DEPARTMENT ET ALS et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 11/27/2012. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WILLIAM COLEMAN,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2613 (MLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff,
v.
RAMON CAMACHO, et al.,
Defendants.
COOPER, District Judge
The plaintiff, pro se prisoner William Coleman, brings the
action against the defendants, Jason Roebuck, Ramon Camacho, Tracy
Polk, Todd Coleman, Stanley Baumer, Ramon Chappard, Jeffrey
Grippaldi, Robert Shamrock, and Jeffrey Pilone.
dkt. entry no. 21, Am. Compl.)
(See generally
Coleman alleges that the
defendants, while acting as employees of the Long Branch Police
Department, detained and assaulted him.
(See id. at 1-2.)
It
appears that Coleman asserts an excessive force claim under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(See id.)
Roebuck has generally denied the allegations of the Amended
Complaint.
1.)
(See dkt. entry no. 29, Roebuck Answer (“Answer”) at
But he now moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint, insofar as
it is asserted against him, under two theories.
(See dkt. entry
no. 43, Mot.; dkt. entry no. 43-2, Br. in Supp.)
First, Roebuck
argues that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a)(1) because it does
not provide a statement of the grounds for the Court’s
jurisdiction.
(See Br. in Supp. at 3.)
Second, he argues that the
Amended Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 8(d)(1) and
Rule 10(b) because it does not provide “simpl[e] statement[s]” in
numbered paragraphs.
(See id. at 3-4.)
The Court now resolves the Motion without oral argument.
L.Civ.R. 78.1(b).1
See
For the reasons that follow, the Court finds
that: (1) no statement of jurisdiction is necessary; and (2) the
Amended Complaint, insofar as it is asserted against Roebuck, is
clear and contains enough information to permit response.
The
Court will therefore deny the Motion.
BACKGROUND
The Amended Complaint was filed on November 28, 2011.
In it,
Coleman states:
On December 7, 2011, at approximately 11:50 p.m., I
was approached and surrounded by nine unidentified
individuals, now known to be members of the Long Branch
Police Department STREET CRIME UNIT, as I entered the
1
Coleman has not filed opposition to the Motion. The Court
nevertheless has an obligation to resolve the Motion on its merits.
Cf. Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991);
Anchorage Assocs. v. V.I. Bd. of Tax Rev., 922 F.2d 168, 176 (3d
Cir. 1990).
2
property belonging to MATILDA TERRACE APARTMENTS - I was
on 2nd AVENUE near Apartment # 468. I didn’t know who
these individuals were, and none of them identified
theirselves [sic] as police officers or produced a badge
of any sort - before I knew it, I was thrown to the
ground and viciously assaulted, punched and kicked in my
face and head. Not once was I informed that I was under
arrest, and I had no clue who these people assaulting me
were - the assault continued, and, as I began to try to
cover up from the kicking by using my arms as a shield,
other “weapons” were used such as gun handles and
sticks. I began to become extremely fearful for my
life, but, seeing that I was completely outnumbered,
continued to try and deflect the kicks and punches by
using my arms to cover my head and face - yet, there
wasn’t an announcement of me being under arrest or of
these people being police officers once during this
assault, not once . . . .
(Am. Compl. at 1 (errors in original).)
Coleman also describes the
extent of his injuries and states that he seeks, inter alia,
$1,000,000 “for pain + suffering, stress + duress, and other
traumas”, $350,000 in compensatory damages, and $3,000,000 in
punitive damages.
(Id. at 2.)
Roebuck filed the Answer on June 7, 2012.
Answer.)
(See generally
He there states that “[t]he allegations of the
plaintiff’s amended complaint are denied.”
(Id. at 1.)
He also
sets forth fifteen affirmative defenses, none of which implicate
Rule 8(a)(1), Rule 8(d)(1), or Rule 10(b).
3
DISCUSSION
I.
RULE 8(a)
Rule 8(a) requires that all pleadings stating a claim for
relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court’s jurisdiction”.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
The Court may
dismiss a complaint that lacks such a statement.
See, e.g.,
Jackson v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 438 Fed.Appx. 74, 75 (3d Cir.
2011); Benevuto v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 678 F.Supp. 469, 471
(D.N.J. 1988).
But the Court holds pro se pleadings to less
stringent standards than pleadings drafted by lawyers, and will
show pro se litigants a greater degree of leniency.
See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Davenport v. Ricci, No. 09-4997,
2012 WL 2863662, at *6 (D.N.J. July 11, 2012).
Accordingly, “where
a plaintiff in his complaint has pleaded sufficient operative facts
vesting or establishing jurisdiction in the Court even absent the
recitation of the correct jurisdictional provision, the Court still
may retain jurisdiction over the cause of action.”
Fields v.
Romano, 370 F.Supp. 1053, 1055 (E.D. Pa. 1974); see also Beeler v.
United States, 338 F.2d 687, 689 (3d Cir. 1964); Uhler v. Commw. of
Pa., 321 F.Supp. 490, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1970).
Roebuck argues that the Court should dismiss the Amended
Complaint because the Amended Complaint does not contain a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction
4
over the action.
(See Br. in Supp. at 3.)
by Roebuck’s argument.
The Court is troubled
Roebuck appears to ignore Coleman’s status
as a pro se litigant, and presents his argument without citation to
case law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, or other district courts within this circuit.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Amended Complaint.
Coleman asserts that several Long Branch police officers, including
Roebuck, detained and assaulted him.
(See Am. Compl. at 1-2.)
It
thus appears, as noted above, that Coleman asserts an excessive
force claim against the defendants under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
(See id.; see also dkt. entry no. 13, 4-11-11 Op. (finding
that the Complaint, which asserted substantially identical factual
allegations, asserted an excessive force claim under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution).)
Because Coleman has pleaded sufficient operative facts to
demonstrate that his claim arises under federal law, he has pleaded
sufficient operative facts to establish the grounds of the Court’s
jurisdiction over the action.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United Sates.”);
Uhler, 321 F.Supp. at 491.
5
II.
RULE 8(d)(1) and RULE 10(b)
Rule 8(d)(1) requires plaintiffs to state each allegation in a
complaint in a simple, concise, and direct form.
8(d)(1).
See Fed.R.Civ.P.
Rule 10(b) requires plaintiffs to state claims “in
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single
set of circumstances.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b).
When a plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8(d)(1)
or Rule 10(b), the Court has discretion to dismiss the complaint.
See, e.g., Binsack v. Lackawanna Cnty. Prison, 438 Fed.Appx. 158,
160 (3d Cir. 2011) (affirming district court dismissal of complaint
for failure to comply with, inter alia, Rule 8(d)(1)); Borrell v.
Weinstein Supply Corp., No. 94-2857, 1994 WL 530102, at *2 (E.D.
Pa. Sept. 27, 1994) (“Where a complaint fails to comply with Rule
10(b), dismissal of the complaint is within the court’s
discretion.”).
But the Court must construe all pleadings “to do
substantial justice”.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e).
Thus, the Court will not
dismiss a complaint for mere failure to comply with Rule 8(d)(1) or
Rule 10(b) where such failure does not prevent defendants from
filing responsive pleadings.
See Buzzerd v. E. Pikeland Twp., No.
90-1675, 1990 WL 90109, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 1990) (“Failure to
number the paragraph[s] . . . may be inartful pleading, but the
complaint clearly discloses the nature of the plaintiffs’
grievances and the theory of the complaint.”); Shaw v. Russell
6
Trucking Line, Inc., 542 F.Supp. 776, 781 (W.D. Pa. 1982) (denying
motion to dismiss complaint for violations of Rule 10(b) because
complaint “was sufficiently clear so as to enable each Defendant to
effectively formulate a response”).
Roebuck argues that the Court should dismiss the Amended
Complaint because Coleman failed to comply with Rule 8(d)(1) and
Rule 10(b).
He states:
Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth the factual basis for
his causes of action in one paragraph that has not been
numbered. The paragraph is not simply statement [sic],
but rather long statements [sic], which make it near
[sic] impossible for the Defendants [sic] to respond.
(Br. in Supp. at 4 (emphasis added).)
Here, as above, Roebuck
fails to cite relevant case law.
The Court concludes that Roebuck’s argument lacks merit.
Roebuck is correct insofar as he asserts that the Amended Complaint
technically violates Rule 10(b); the Amended Complaint appears as
one paragraph that spans approximately one and a half pages.
Am. Compl. at 1-2.)
(See
But it appears that the Amended Complaint
contains enough information and is sufficiently clear enough to
permit response, as Roebuck: (1) acknowledges that the Amended
Complaint sets forth the factual basis for Coleman’s claims; and
(2) earlier filed a responsive pleading, denying all of the factual
allegations contained in the Amended Complaint.
at 4; Answer at 1.)
7
(See Br. in Supp.
CONCLUSION
The Court, for the reasons set forth above, will deny
the Motion.
The Court will issue a separate Order.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
.
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Date:
November 27, 2012
8
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?