Meleika v. City of Bayonne
| Docket Number | Civ. 21-11394 (KM)(JBC) |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Parties | STEVEN MELEIKA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BAYONNE, BAYONNE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BAYONNE MEDICAL CENTER Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Steven Meleika, alleging injuries to himself, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as amended naming the City of Bayonne and the Bayonne Police Department as defendants. He has been granted in forma pauperis status. For the reasons expressed below, I will dismiss Meleika's Second Amended Complaint on initial screening with prejudice.
Steven Meleika, pro se, filed an initial complaint in this action, naming the City of Bayonne as defendant on May 18 2021. (DE 1.)[1] I dismissed the original complaint without prejudice for failure to pay the required fees or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. (DE 4.)
On August 2, 2021, Meleika submitted his in forma pauperis application (DE 5), which I granted, relieving Meleika of the obligation to tender the filing fee. (DE 9.) I dismissed the complaint upon initial screening, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (DE 7, 8.)
Meleika filed an amended complaint against the City of Bayonne, the Bayonne Police Department (“BPD”), and the Bayonne Medical Center on September 8, 2021. (DE 11.) On October 21, 2021, I dismissed the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (DE 17, 18). The dismissal of the amended complaint was without prejudice to the filing, within 30 days, of a second amended complaint.
On November 8, 2021, Meleika filed what appears to be his Second Amended Complaint, titled “Amended Brief.” (DE 19.) Thereafter, Melieka filed a series of three submissions: (1) a letter titled “Change of [V]enue,” which requests that further filings be assigned to another judge because I have a “conflict of interest” (DE 20); and (2) two letters requesting that the Court award him damages for alleged constitutional violations. (DE 21, 22.) Considering Meleika's pro se status, the Court will construe the documents together as the 2AC.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
[T]he provisions of § 1915(e) apply to all in forma pauperis complaints, not simply those filed by prisoners. See, e.g., Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 n. 19 (3d Cir. 2002) (non-prisoner indigent plaintiffs are “clearly within the scope of § 1915(e)(2)”). See also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) ().
Atamian v. Burns, 236 Fed.Appx. 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2007). See also Johnson v. Rihanna, No. CV 18-448, 2018 WL 3244630, at *1 (W.D. Pa. June 13, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 18-448, 2018 WL 3239819 (W.D. Pa. July 2, 2018).
“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 Fed.Appx. 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)). That standard is set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), as explicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. To survive the court's screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must allege ‘sufficient factual matter' to show that the claim is facially plausible. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “[A] pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Pro se pleadings, as always, will be liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Nevertheless, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
Meleika is a serial filer of lawsuits against the State of New Jersey, the Cities of Bayonne and Jersey City, and other parties.[2] The original complaint in this action, dismissed on screening, alleged as follows:
(DE 1 at 4.)
The amended complaint, also dismissed, added that the events took place at Meleika's address of record in Bayonne. However, the amended complaint did not allege new facts, but merely expanded the legal grounds for relief:
(DE 11 at 4.)
The 2AC alleges that Meleika was the victim of a “swatting” incident. (DE 19 at 1.)[3] The statement of facts, entitled “Brief,” reads in its entirety as follows:
The plaintiff sues the city of Bayonne because the police were called to the house on a welfare check. The police entered the house and found nobody to be injured so they left. The welfare check resulted from the sounds of gunfire on a video game or firecrackers. Nobody was injured. The plaintiff was swatted by a caller allegedly these claims that were false. Nobody was injured. The plaintiff sues the police and the city for violating his third amendment right, his 4th amendment right, his 14th amendment right, and for false arrest and Malicious prosecution.
(DE 19 at 1.)
Meleika also submitted a series of filings requesting that this case be assigned “to another judge to protect his right to a fair trial” (DE 20) and that the Court award him damages based on (1) my October 21, 2021 opinion dismissing the amended complaint, which supposedly found that the City of Bayonne “violated ... the 4th Amendment” and (2) a purported “settlement recommendation” from the New Jersey Intergovernmental Insurance Fund (“NJIIF”). (DE 21, 22.)
Mr. Meleika appears to be bringing this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute 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.
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To state a claim under section 1983, Meleika must allege: (1) the violation of a right under the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that the person acting under color of state law committed or cause the alleged deprivation. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Piecknick v. Pennyslvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56 (3d Cir. 1994); Ross v. Graf, No. 19CV20534NLHMJS, 2021 WL 4452651, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2021).
Certain claims, such as the Third Amendment claim, malicious prosecution, false arrest, or violation of due process, may be disposed of summarily. The 2AC, like the amended complaint, fails to allege any facts suggesting that (1) troops were quartered in Meleika's home; (2) any prosecution was initiated against Meleika; (3) Meleika was arrested; or (4) any violations of due process occurred. Construing the 2AC very liberally, the allegation that BPD “entered [his] house and found nobody to be injured so they left,” might implicate the Fourth Amendment's protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. I therefore address that claim as asserted against the City of Bayonne and BPD.
The 2AC must be dismissed against BPD. As previously stated, a New Jersey police department is not a separate legal entity, but a department of the municipality. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40A-14-118 (); see also Padilla v. Twp. of Cherry Hill, 110 Fed.Appx. 272, 278 (3d Cir. 2004); Mitchell v. City of Jersey City, No. 15-CV-6907 (KM), 2016 WL 1381379, at *1 n.1 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2016).
Accordingly, the proper defendant is the City of Bayonne. The Complaint is dismissed as against BPD.
The original complaint, amended complaint, and the 2AC, read in combination, appear to allege that Meleika was the victim of “swatting” and that, because of this false call, BPD conducted a “welfare check” and “entered” his home. The 2AC adds that the while conducting the welfare check, BPD did not observe anyone to be “injured” and subsequently left the residence. (DE 19 at 1.)
In dismissing the amended complaint, the Court stated that it was “unclear how a cause of action based on ‘swatting' would implicate a...
To continue reading
Request your trial