BRADFORD v. BOLLES et al
Filing
49
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 8/4/2014. (eaj)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Drew Bradford,
Civ. No. 13-1910
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
Joe Bolles, et al.,
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
This matter appears before the Court upon the motion to dismiss brought by Defendants
Joe Bolles and others (hereinafter, “Judiciary Defendants”). 1 (Doc. No. 42). Plaintiff Drew
Bradford (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) does not oppose the motion. 2 The Court has decided the
motion after considering the parties’ written submissions and without oral argument pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For the reasons given below, Judiciary Defendants’
motion to dismiss will be granted.
BACKGROUND
This case involves a suit for money damages against members of the state judiciary for
their attempts to limit Plaintiff’s communications with the court.
1
The other Judiciary Defendants involved in the present motion are employees or members of
the state judiciary: Mary Braunschweiger, Eugene Farkas, Trial Court Administration, Honorable
Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., Meryl Nadler, Patrice Rindok, and the Administrative Office of the
Courts. (Doc. No. 41).
2
After this motion to dismiss was filed, Plaintiff retained John Charles Allen, Esquire as counsel
in this matter. (Doc. No 42). Since being retained, counsel requested and received three
extensions of time to file opposition to the present motion. (Doc. Nos. 43, 44. 45, 46, 47, 48).
1
On or about March 27, 2013, Plaintiff, who was pro se at the time, filed a complaint
against Judiciary Defendants and other defendants, claiming violations of the United States
Constitution and the New Jersey State Constitution. (Doc. No.1). Plaintiff also raised several
tort claims. The present motion and recited facts only concern the allegations against Judiciary
Defendants.
At some point during or after October 2011, Plaintiff reported allegations of evidence
tampering to Judiciary Defendant Joseph Bolles, the Assistant Civil Division Manager for the
New Jersey Judiciary. Plaintiff claims that Bolles has been “severely harassing Plaintiff for
years” and retaliated against Plaintiff for making this report by “falsely” telling his supervisor,
Eugene Farkes, that Plaintiff left “voluminous” and harassing voicemails for court staff. (Doc.
No. 1 at 11). Farkes responded to this allegation by banning Plaintiff from “all telephone []
communications” with courts in Somerset, Warren and Hunterdon counties. (Id. at 11, 12). 3
Plaintiff also alleges that, around November or December of 2011, Bolles made offensive
religious remarks to Plaintiff when discussing a certain case. Bolles also allegedly lied to a
judge regarding one of Plaintiff’s other cases, causing that case to be dismissed. (Id. at 13-14).
Plaintiff states that he then sought assistance from the Acting Administrative Director of
the Courts, the Honorable Glenn A. Grant. Judge Grant similarly limited Plaintiff’s
communications with the court and court staff. (Id. at 14, 17). On April 11, 2012, Meryl Nadler,
Counsel to the Administrative Director, also informed Plaintiff that he had to communicate in
writing to court staff. (Id. at 13). On April 18, 2012, Mary Braunschweiger, Civil Division
Manager, informed Plaintiff that he could only engage in written communication with the court.
3
It is unclear when Plaintiff first learned of this restriction; however, Farkas formally informed
Plaintiff of this telephone ban in a letter dated February 2012. (Id.).
2
(Id. at 15). Braunschweiger also allegedly informed Plaintiff that she was the only person with
whom Plaintiff could communicate. (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges that Patrice Rindok, Court
Services Supervisor, provided certain false information to court officials that caused the police to
remove Plaintiff from the courthouse. (Doc. No. 1 at 15).
Plaintiff generally claims that Judiciary Defendants: (1) are conspiring to deny him his
rights because Plaintiff is “exposing corruption in Somerset County;” (2) have violated his First
Amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly and religion; and (3) have deprived Plaintiff
of due process and equal protection. (Id. at 15, 22-24). Plaintiff also alleges breach of contract,
libel, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
and conspiracy against Judiciary Defendants. (Id. at 25-31, 36).
With respect to all relevant counts, Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of “actual
damages, compensatory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, and costs of suit.”
(See e.g. id. at 27, 28).
DISCUSSION
1. Legal Standards
a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides that a party may bring a motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806, 810
(3d Cir. 2007). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the
elements of standing, and each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter in
which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence
required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Focus v. Allegheny Cnty. Court of Common
Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 838 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
3
“When standing is challenged on the basis of the pleadings, [courts must] accept as true
all material allegations in the complaint, and . . . construe the complaint in favor of the
complaining party.” Id. (citations omitted). However, when the challenging party presents a
factual challenge, “the trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the
existence of its power to hear the case.” Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 204, 302 n. 3 (3d
Cir. 2006).
b. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the
complaint. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F. 3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). The defendant bears the
burden of showing that no claim has been presented. Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750
(3d Cir. 2005). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court should conduct a
three-part analysis. See Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). “First, the court
must ‘take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.’” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 56 U.S. 662, 675 (2009)). Second, the court must accept as true all of a plaintiff’s wellpleaded factual allegations and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). The court may disregard any
conclusory legal allegations. Id. Finally, the court must determine whether the “facts are
sufficient to show that plaintiff has a ‘plausible claim for relief.’” Id. at 211 (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679). Such a claim requires more than a mere allegation of an entitlement to relief or
demonstration of the “mere possibility of misconduct;” the facts must allow a court reasonably to
infer “that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 210, 211 (quoting Iqbal,
556 U.S. 678-79).
4
2. Analysis
The Eleventh Amendment bars suits by individuals against states or their agencies unless
immunity has been waived. See Pennsylvania Fed'n of Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. Hess, 297 F.3d
310, 323–24 (3d Cir. 2002). Sovereign immunity “also bars a suit against a state official in his
or her official capacity because it ‘is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the
official's office.’” Garden State Elec. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Levin, 144 Fed. Appx. 247, 251
(3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)). Therefore,
“[a]s a matter of law, suits against individuals acting in their official capacities are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment.” Smith v. Hayman, No. 09–2602, 2012 WL 1079634, at *22 (D.N.J. Mar.
20, 2012) (quoting Holland v. Taylor, 604 F.Supp.2d 692, 699 (D. Del. 2009)). The Eleventh
Amendment does not, however, bar a suit against a state official acting in his or her individual
capacity, even if the actions which are the subject of the suit were part of his or her official
duties. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31 (1991).
Qualified immunity is also immunity from suit. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526
(1985). However, when analyzing qualified immunity, the Court asks two different questions: 1)
“whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all;” and 2)
“whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Wilson v. Layne,
526 U.S. 603, 609 (1999). The latter question “turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the
action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 244 (2009). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the
5
Constitution,” under color of law. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999).
Here, each Judiciary Defendant against whom these claims are brought is either a state
agency or state official acting in an official capacity as an employee or member of the state
judiciary branch. Moreover, Plaintiff does not show that Plaintiff’s ability to communicate with
the court employees over telephone is a well-established right, nor does Plaintiff state in the
Complaint that he is suing any Judiciary Defendant in his or her individual capacity. See Saucier
v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (requiring a violation of a well-established right). For the
reasons set forth above, Judiciary Defendants are entitled to immunity.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Judiciary Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.
/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
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?