MARTINEZ v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 1/10/2018. (mmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ,
Civil Action No. 17-3605 (PGS)
Plaintiff,

v.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff is proceeding, informapauperis, with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C.

§

1983. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in fornia pauperis, see ECF No. 2, the Court must

screen the Complaint to determine whether the case shall be dismissed because it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§

1915(e)(2). Having completed this

screening, for the reasons stated below, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The crux of Plaintiffs claims is that individuals from the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s
Office impermissibly disclosed his state juvenile delinquency records to other individuals, such as
his codefendants and employer, during the prosecution of another crime. However, to state a claim
for relief under

§

1983, Plaintiff must establish the violation of a right secured by the Constitution

or laws of the United States. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50-1 (1999); Morrow
v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 166-7 (3d Cir. 2013). There is no federal right to the non-disclosure of

state juvenile records. See McDonnell v. United States, 4 F.3d 1227, 1249 (3d Cir. 1993) (finding
that state juvenile records do not fall within the scope of federal statute prohibiting disclosure of
records injuvenile delinquency proceedings); O’Neill v. Kerrigan,No. 11-3437, 2013 WL 654409,

at *9 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22,2013) (finding most courts have held that the constitutional right to privacy
does not extend to juvenile arrest and criminal records) (collecting cases). Defendants’ conduct
may have indeed violated some state disclosure law, but that carmot be the basis of a federal claim.
See Nunez

V.

Pachman, 578 F.3d 228, 233 (3d Cir. 2009). To the extent Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants imperrnissibly disclosed his sex offender status, there is also no federal right of privacy
to an individual’s sex offender status. See Paul P. v. Verniero, 170 F.3d 396, 404 (3d Cir. 1999).
Having failed to state a cognizable claim under

§ 1983, the Court dismisses the Complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal is with prejudice because
the Court finds that an opportunity to amend would be futile. See Grayson V. Mayview State flosp.,
293 F.3d 103, 112-13 (3d Cir. 2002).

Date: ((to(t’
Peter G. Sheridan
United States District Judge

2