ORTEGA v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 10/3/2012. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ALEX ORTEGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 12-4701 (JAP)
O P I N I O N
APPEARANCES:
Alex Ortega, Pro Se
82651
Somerset County Jail
P.O. Box 3000
Somerville, NJ 08876
PISANO, District Judge
Plaintiff, confined at the Somerset County Jail, Somerville,
New Jersey brings this civil action alleging violations of his
constitutional rights.
He has applied to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
At this time,
the Court must review the complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) 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.
reasons, the complaint must be dismissed.
1
For the following
BACKGROUND
Here, Plaintiff seeks to sue the State of New Jersey, and
the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office for prosecutorial
misconduct.
He argues that the Prosecutor’s Office failed to
inform the grand jury of certain aspects of his case and that he
has been denied a due process hearing.
He asks this Court to
“step in and take jurisdiction of [his] case matter to overlook
the state[‘]s finding . . . ,” and requests dismissal of the
indictment and monetary damages.
(Complt., ¶¶ 6, 7).
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
1.
Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104–134, §§
801–810, 110 Stat. 1321–66 to 1321–77 (April 26, 1996), requires
a district court to review a complaint in a civil action in which
a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or seeks redress
against a governmental employee or entity.
The Court is required
to identify cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss any claim
that is frivolous, 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
This action is subject to sua sponte
screening for dismissal under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
2
1915A because Plaintiff is proceeding as an indigent and is a
prisoner.
In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the
Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007)
(following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also
United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992).
The Supreme Court refined the standard for summary dismissal
of a complaint that fails to state a claim in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009).
The Court examined Rule 8(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that a complaint
must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
8(a)(2).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Citing its opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007) for the proposition that “[a] pleading that
offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do,’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at
1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), the Supreme Court held
that, to prevent a summary dismissal, a civil complaint must now
allege “sufficient factual matter” to show that the claim is
facially plausible.
This then “allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210
(3d Cir. 2009)(citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948).
3
The Supreme Court's ruling in Iqbal emphasizes that a
plaintiff must demonstrate that the allegations of his complaint
are plausible.
See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949–50.
See also
Twombly, 505 U.S. at 555, & n.3; Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc.,
643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011).
“A complaint must do more than
allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief.
‘show’ such an entitlement with its facts.”
A complaint has to
Fowler, 578 F.3d at
211 (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234–35
(3d Cir. 2008)).
2.
Section 1983 Actions
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 was committed or caused by a person acting
under color of state law.
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
4
(1988); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255–56 (3d Cir.
1994); Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011).
B.
Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff cannot sue the State of New Jersey in this § 1983
suit.
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not
be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of
another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
As a general proposition, a suit by private parties seeking
to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in a
state treasury is barred from federal court by the Eleventh
Amendment, unless Eleventh Amendment immunity is waived by the
state itself or by federal statute.
Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974).
See, e.g., Edelman v.
The Eleventh Amendment
protects states and their agencies and departments from suit in
federal court regardless of the type of relief sought.
See
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,
100 (1984).
Similarly, absent consent by a state, the Eleventh
Amendment bars federal court suits for money damages against
state officers in their official capacities.
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985).
Section 1983 does not override
a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.
5
See Kentucky v.
See Quern v. Jordan, 440
U.S. 332 (1979).
Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against the State of
New Jersey must be dismissed.
Furthermore, Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief in the
form of an order dismissing the New Jersey State court criminal
indictment against him.
This claim will be dismissed because
federal courts are barred from interfering with a state criminal
prosecution.
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971)
(“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to
enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such
injunctions”); Wallace v. Fegan, 455 Fed. App'x 137, 139 (3d Cir.
2011).
Finally, in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), the
Supreme Court held that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from
damages under § 1983 for acts that are “intimately associated
with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” such as
“initiating a prosecution and ... presenting the State's case.”
Id. at 430–31.
Since Imbler, the Supreme Court has held that
“absolute immunity applies when a prosecutor prepares to initiate
a judicial proceeding, or appears in court to present evidence in
support of a search warrant application[,but] absolute immunity
does not apply when a prosecutor gives advice to police during a
criminal investigation, when the prosecutor makes statements to
the press, or when a prosecutor acts as a complaining witness in
support of a warrant application.”
6
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555
U.S. 335, 343 (2009) (citations omitted).
Because a prosecutor
is absolutely immune from damages under § 1983 for presenting or
withholding evidence from a grand jury, the damage claims against
the Prosecutor’s Office in obtaining an indictment against
Plaintiff will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
1915A(b)(1).
An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
/s/ Joel A. Pisano
JOEL A. PISANO
United States District Judge
Dated:
October 3, 2012
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?