FIELDS v. VENABLE et al
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 2/4/2016. (kas, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
No. 13-7134 (AET-DEA)
SHELIA A. VENABLE, et al.,
Mark Fields, Plaintiff Pro Se
New Jersey State Prison
PO Box 861
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
fEij C5 2016
WILLIAM T. WALSH
THOMPSON, District Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff Mark Fields'
motion to amend his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
(Docket Entry 31). Plaintiff is a state prisoner
currently confined at New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP"), Trenton,
New Jersey. By Order dated May 7, 2015, this Court granted
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)·.
(Docket Entry 17). Pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a) (1), Plaintiff's motion shall be granted
and the Clerk of the Court shall be directed to file the amended
At this time, the Court must review the amended complaint
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. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
concludes that the complaint shall be dismissed for seeking
relief from immune defendants and for failure to state a claim.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B)
motions shall be dismissed as moot.
I I . BACKGROUND
On October 26, 2011, Plaintiff was sentenced by the
Honorable Sheila Venable, J.S.C., to a nine-year custodial term
with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility term pursuant
to guilty pleas on nine indictments.
(Amended Complaint, Docket
36; Docket Entry 19-1 at 1-9). On November 2, 2006,
Plaintiff was returned to court where Judge Venable re-sentenced
Plaintiff to five years of parole supervision upon his release
as she had forgotten to mention that requirement at sentencing. 1
Latasha Parson, an Institutional Parole Counselor, visited
Plaintiff in Northern State Prison to review the terms and
The condition was noted on the judgment of conviction, however.
(Docket Entry 19-l'at 1).
conditions of parole supervision with him a few days before his
38). She informed Plaintiff that he would be
required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, receive psychiatric
help, enroll in a vocational school, obtain employment, and
observe a curfew in addition to the standard conditions of
(Ibid.; Docket Entry 19-1 at 32.)
Included in the standard conditions is Rule #9, requiring
parolees "refrain from the use, possession or distribution of a
controlled dangerous substance, controlled dangerous substance
analog, or imitation controlled dangerous substance" as defined
by New Jersey law.
(Docket Entry 19-1 at 32).
Plaintiff informed Ms. Parson that he "elected not to
participate in the conditions[,]" as he believed the mandatory
period of parole supervision to be unconstitutional.
38). He indicated that he "refuse[d] to abide by any
of the conditions established in the mandatory parole
supervision certificate . . .
(Ibid.). Ms. Parson presented
Plaintiff with a form indicating that he was to refrain from the
purchase, possession, and use of alcohol as a special condition
of his parole.
(Docket Entry 19-1 at 31). Plaintiff refused to
sign the form.
38; Docket Entry 19-1 at
Plaintiff began CDS counseling at the Community Resource
Center ("CRC") in Jersey City on May 13, 2011. The night before,
Plaintiff was in a car accident and was hospitalized at Jersey
City Medical Center.
40). His doctor
prescribed Ibuprofen and Oxycodone for the pain.
Ortega, the CRC's Community Solutions Assistant Director,
excused Plaintiff from reporting until May 16, 2011.
She called Officer Cynthia Burczyk, Plaintiff's parole officer,
and informed her of Plaintiff's accident and excused absence
(Ibid.). Defendants Ortega, Vargas, Burczyk, and
Vazquez met to discuss Plaintiff's progress on May 19, 2011.
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?