Carter v. New Jersey
| Decision Date | 22 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11-439(FLW) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
| Parties | AUDREY CARTER, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Defendants. |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OPINIONAPPEARANCES:
AUDREY CARTER, Plaintiff pro se
LUANH LLOYD D'MELLO, ESQ.
OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Counsel for Defendants, the State of New Jersey and Paula Dow
ROCKY LEE PETERSON, ESQ.
HILL WALLACK, LLP
Counsel for Defendants Mercer County Prosecutor's Office and
Assistant Prosecutor John Jingoli
Plaintiff Audrey Carter (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), brings this action in forma pauperis. The Court has considered Plaintiff's application for indigent status in this case and concludes that she is permitted to proceed in forma pauperiswithout prepayment of fees or security thereof, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, having reviewed the Complaint, filed on January 21, 2011, and the amended Complaint, filed on January 24, 2011, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and for the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that this action should 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).
On May 24, 2011, defendant Mercer County Prosecutor's Office filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Because the Court has screened this action, sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and has determined that the matter should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as set forth below, defendant's motion is hereby rendered moot.
On September 1, 2009, this Court ordered that Plaintiff "is barred and enjoined from filing any document or pleading of any kind with the Court as a pro se litigant, except in pending litigation, unless Plaintiff (1) first seeks leave of the Court granting Plaintiff written permission to file any such document or pleading and (2) a Judge of the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file such document or pleading." Carter v. New Jersey State, et al., Civil No. 09-3704 (FLW)(Docket entry no. 6). Further, inits September 1, 2009 permanent injunction, the Court established that it would consider granting such approval only if Plaintiff submits to the Court a certification taken under oath stating: "(1) that the complaint is not frivolous or vexatious, nor repetitive or violative of a court order, (2) that all claims presented have never been raised in this Court before and disposed of on the merits, and that it is not barred by principles of claim or issue preclusion, (3) that the proposed filing can survive a challenge under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, (4) that all facts alleged in the complaint are believed to be true by Plaintiff, (5) that Plaintiff has no knowledge or belief that her claims are for any reason foreclosed by controlling law, and (6) that the pleading is in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 11." (Id.)
In the instant matter, Plaintiff submitted her Complaint and amended Complaint for filing without complying with this Court's September 1, 2009 Order. In particular, Plaintiff brings this action asserting that her civil rights were violated and seeking monetary damages based on general claims of gender, race and disability-based discrimination by the following defendants: the State of New Jersey; Attorney General of New Jersey Paula Dow; the Trenton Public Defender's Office; the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office; Attorney Steve Hallett; Prosecutor Bert Scott; Judge Williams; Public Defender Supervisor Vernon Clash;and Prosecutor Supervisor John Jingoli. (Complaint, Caption, opening paragraph).
Plaintiff alleges that these defendants did violate her civil rights, presumably under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the Trenton Municipal Court during the months from 2009 through January 13, 2011. She generally claims that the defendants discriminated against her based on her disabilities, and was shown malice in court. Plaintiff alleges that she paid for a public defender, provided by the State of New Jersey, who then failed to represent her in court three times. Plaintiff further alleges that there was a "conflict of interest" due to the public defender's personal and public affiliation with defendant Steve Hallett. She also alleges that the Judge, Prosecutor and public defender did "illegal court proceedings and failed to allow [her] a fair hearing, speedy trial after three court appearances." (Compl., Cause of Action).
In the brief and amended brief submitted by Plaintiff, she admits that defendant Steve Hallett had filed a complaint against Plaintiff in state court. It is from this municipal court action that the incidents and allegations derive.1
In particular, Plaintiff enumerates the following alleged wrongful conduct by defendants:
(1) violation of freedom to walk. (2) failure to have a speedy hearing or trial. (3) differential treatment. (4) discrimination of gender and disabilities. (5) failure to give proper representation by the public defenders office after payment during all court hearings. (6) failure to transfer court case to another county or court without conflict of interest app. 3 times. (7) illegally forcing defendants to move out of the State to live by showing discrimination by no contact order. (8) discrimination by Judge, the Plaintiff [Hallett], Prosecutor and public defender comments during court proceedings knowing I was not being properly represented and the defendant was a[n] attorney and a[n] acquaintance. (9) failure to give a timely hearing. (10) fair hearing, caused the defendant embarrassment and humiliation in court by prejudice and favoring the plaintiff without [a] hearing each time. (11) allowed extensive time period six months to bring the case back in for a hearing on January 13, 2011. (12) asked the defendant questions about legal representation. (13) the public defenders stated a conflict of interest and still proceeded in court app 3 times after defendant requested the case be moved to another County the first time. (14) public defenders office failed to talk to me about my case each time and proceeded in court app 3 times. (15) the prosecutor refused to drop the criminal charges and proceeded when she knew the state had made errors and still proceeded and did not do there [sic] job in having the case move out of County. (16) Last Judge Williams violated my rights telling me I should of [sic] left a public place after I had been seated, paid for my items and was enjoyingmyself. Judge Williams then told me in court on January 13, 2011, after the situation I was in, meaning the charges I was to leave the place, as soon as Attorney Steve Hallett entered. He wanted my life style confined.
(Plaintiff's Amended Brief, dated January 24, 2011, Docket entry no. 2).
On May 24, 2011, defendant Mercer County Prosecutor's Office filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Docket entry no. 4). The motion asserts that the Complaint should be dismissed because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, because the prosecutor defendants are entitled to prosecutorial immunity under federal law, and because the prosecutor defendants are entitled to immunities under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. (Id.).
On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to have all municipal court transcripts heard in Court and added to the record. (Docket entry no. 9). On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed another motion to allow the use of the municipal court transcripts in this case and for recusal of judges from this case.2 Namely, Plaintiff seeks to have this Court and the Honorable Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. recuse themselves from this case because it is a "conflict of interest" for them "to handle this civil matter, along with Judge Garrett Brown."(Docket entry no. 10, at pg. 1). In her motion, Plaintiff also asserted arguments in opposition to the motion filed by defendant, Mercer County Prosecutor's Office. Defendant filed a reply brief on July 14, 2011. (Docket entry no. 13).
On July 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed another letter brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. (Docket entry no. 14). On July 20, 2011, Plaintiff submitted copies of the municipal court transcripts regarding the claims raised in this matter. (Docket entry no. 15).
On July 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed yet another motion for miscellaneous relief and to add two new parties to this action. (Docket entry no. 16). The two new parties are the public defenders, Jason Hageman and Dwayne Williamson, who represented Plaintiff at her municipal court hearing dates. (Id.).
On July 25, 2011, defendant Mercer County Prosecutor's Office filed a supplemental reply letter. (Docket entry no. 17). Also on July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request for summary judgment. (Docket entry no. 18).
Plaintiff asks to be awarded damages in the amount of $200,000.00 for pain and suffering, differential treatment and discrimination. (Complaint, Demand).
The Complaint by a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis is subject to sua sponte dismissal by the court if the Complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from defendants who are immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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) and Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). See also United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). The Court must "accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). The Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial