Johnson v. Paparozzi

• Decision Date: 16 September 2002
• Docket Number: Civil No. 02-2942(WGB).
• Citation: 219 F.Supp.2d 635
• Parties: James JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Mario PAPAROZZI, Chairman, New Jersey Parole Board, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

219 F.Supp.2d 635

James JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Mario PAPAROZZI, Chairman, New Jersey Parole Board, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 02-2942(WGB).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

September 16, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James Johnson, Rahway, NJ, pro se.

Tamara L. Rudow, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Law, Trenton, NJ, for Defendants.

OPINION

BASSLER, District Judge.

Plaintiff, James Johnson ("Johnson"), currently incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison, Rahway, New Jersey, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his civil and constitutional rights. At this time, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to determine whether the plaintiff states cognizable claims or whether the complaint 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 plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

BACKGROUND

In 1975, plaintiff James Johnson was convicted and sentenced to 52 to 70 years for rape and other related offenses. (Complaint, ¶ 9). Since 1988, Johnson has been attempting to be released on parole. Parole hearings occurred in 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, and 2002. (Complt., ¶¶ 16, 17, 24, 27, 30, 32, 35, 43, 49).

In 1990, a three-member panel of the New Jersey Parole Board ("NJPB") issued plaintiff a future eligibility term ("FET") of 120 months. (Complt., ¶ 18). Plaintiff appealed the FET to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, who remanded the case for reconsideration of the FET. (Complt., ¶ 23). In 1992, the NJPB issued an FET of 96 months. (Complt., ¶ 24). In 1995, after being denied parole, the plaintiff was given a 72 month FET. (Complt., ¶ 36). In 2001, after again being denied parole, the plaintiff was issued a 120 month FET. (Complt., ¶ 44).

Sometime before 1992, the plaintiff filed a § 1983 action challenging the delay of an exceptional progress hearing by the NJPB until after the plaintiff's first parole board hearing. (Complt., ¶ 21). Plaintiff's claims were denied as moot. (Complt., ¶ 22).¹ In 1994, the plaintiff filed a second § 1983 action, which was dismissed without prejudice. (Complt., ¶ 31). Plaintiff also filed a habeas corpus petition in 1995. (Complt., ¶ 37). The petition was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. (Complt., ¶ 38). In addition to these actions, the plaintiff filed numerous appeals to the NJPB and the Appellate Division for his various parole denials and impositions of FETs. (Complt., ¶¶ 19, 20, 25, 29, 45, 48).

The plaintiff now seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages based upon the following arguments:

1. The NJPB has unconstitutionally imposed FETs outside of its own guidelines. (Complt., ¶ 52);

2. "The decisions of the NJPB to impose FETs of 120 months, 96 months, 72 months, and then 120 months again, absent any guidelines for the imposition of such FETs which differs from the date otherwise established by the schedule pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.56, is unconstitutional." (Complt., ¶ 54);

3. The actions of the NJPB in failing to provide timely hearings and failing to render timely decisions, then "covering up those actions by outrageous FETs" is unconstitutional. (Complt., ¶ 55);

4. The actions of the NJBP are a "continuous flagrant abuse of power, vindictive, unconstitutional, and are likely to continue without intervention of this Court." (Complt., ¶ 56);

5. The actions of the NJPB are vindictive and are imposed in retaliation for plaintiff's various lawsuits and appeals. (Complt., ¶ 57);

6. The actions of the NJPB deny the plaintiff equal protection of the laws because the NJPB has released convicted murderers who were sentenced to the death penalty, (Complt., ¶ 58), as well as "white inmates who were either friends and acquaintances with members of the NJPB, or relatives of political and/or judicial officials." (Complt., ¶ 60).

The plaintiff asks that this Court issue declaratory judgments stating that the NJPB violated plaintiff's due process rights by conducting late parole hearings and issuing late decisions, that the NJPB's "unbridled discretion" in setting FETs is unconstitutionally vindictive, and that the decisions of the NJPB have been arbitrary and capricious against the plaintiff and violative of his equal protection rights. (Complt., ¶¶ 62-66). Additionally, plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the increase of his FET from 72 months to 120 months in March 2001 was arbitrary, capricious, and vindictive, "and done to make the NJPB's denial of plaintiff's right to a timely hearing moot." (Complt., ¶ 67). Further, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief ordering the NJPB to grant him immediate release on parole. (Complt., ¶ 69). He also asks for an injunction to force the NJPB to establish a schedule for release for when it decides to go outside of the guidelines for imposing an FET. (Complt., ¶ 70). Finally, plaintiff seeks punitive damages in the amount of $10.00 per day for every day of incarceration from the first day he became eligible for parole in 1989. (Complt., ¶ 68).

DISCUSSION

A. Section 1915 Review

In 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Title VIII of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996). Congress's purpose in enacting the PLRA was "primarily to curtail claims brought by prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act . . . many of which are routinely dismissed as legally frivolous." Santana v. United States, 98 F.3d 752, 755 (3d Cir.1996). A crucial part of the congressional plan for curtailing meritless prisoner suits is the requirement, embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, that a court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, any prisoner actions that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from immune defendants.

When determining the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir.1992). The Court should "accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and 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 need not, however, lend credit to a pro se plaintiff's "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions." Id.

Section 1915A requires the Court to dismiss any actions in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or employee that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (interpreting the former § 1915(d)). The standard for evaluating whether a complaint is "frivolous" is an objective one. See Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (3d Cir.1995).

A pro se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim only if it appears "`beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Haines, 404 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. 594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir.1981). Finally, a complaint may be dismissed if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

A plaintiff may have a federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged 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 establish a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged conduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law and that the conduct deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56 (3d Cir.1994). Liberally construing the plaintiff's complaint, the plaintiff alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights have been violated by the defendants.

C. Parole

There is no federal constitutional right to parole. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 373, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987); Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979); Prevard v. Fauver, 47 F.Supp.2d 539, 545 (D.N.J.1999). Nevertheless, the Third Circuit has held that "once a state institutes a parole system, all prisoners have a liberty interest flowing directly from the due process clause in not being denied parole for arbitrary or constitutionally impermissible reasons." Block v. Potter, 631 F.2d 233, 236 (3d Cir.1980); Watson v. DiSabato, 933 F.Supp. 390, 393 (D...