Moore v. Dow
| Decision Date | 02 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 11-281 (JLL) |
| Parties | LEROY T. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. PAULA T. DOW, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OPINIONAPPEARANCES:
LEROY T. MOORE, Plaintiff pro se
# 299658C/666976
Plaintiff, Leroy T. Moore, a state inmate presently confined at the Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey, seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis. Based on his affidavit of indigence, the Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1998) and order the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint.
At this time, the Court must review the Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) 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 itseeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Complaint should proceed in part, but will issue an Order directing the pertinent parties to show cause as to whether this case should be stayed pending termination of any ongoing state criminal proceedings related to the unlawful search and seizure claim at issue in this case.
Plaintiff, Leroy T. Moore ("Moore"), brings this civil action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the following defendants: Paula T. Dow, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey; Bruce Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor; Valerie Lispano; Joseph Celentano; Sgt. Scott; Investigator Craig Marchak; Investigator Rodriguez; Investigator Ellmyer; Lisa Berrios; Michael Dammaan; Carteret Police Department; Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office; Chief of Carteret Police Department; Officer Paul Stenetella; and Christopher Kuberet, Esq. (Complaint, Caption). The following factual allegations are taken from the Complaint, and are accepted for purposes of this screening only. The Court has made no findings as to the veracity of plaintiff's allegations.
This is Moore's second Complaint bringing claims under § 1983 with regard to an incident occurring on August 28, 2009. His first Complaint was dismissed without prejudice on or aboutNovember 15, 2010. See Franklin, et al. v. Borough of Carteret, et al., Civil No. 10-1467 (JLL). In this action, Moore alleges that, on August 28, 2009, members of the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office and the Carteret Police Department unlawfully entered his residence on a search warrant that was forged. In particular, Moore alleges that defendant Celentano forged a judge's signature on the warrant. Moore complains that the officers entered his apartment with a K-9 dog, which was not on a leash or with its trainer. He further states that the officers grabbed Moore's young daughter by her arms and tossed her to the ground. (Compl., ¶¶ 55 C.1 and 2).
Next, Moore alleges that defendants Dammaan and Celentano used excessive force upon plaintiff by assaulting plaintiff's head with a police scanner and then choking plaintiff while he was handcuffed. Moore states that the officers told plaintiff that they knew he had drugs because he had the police scanner tuned to the Carteret police channel. (Compl., 5 C.2). Moore also alleges that defendant Stenetella had choked plaintiff because Stenetella observed Moore swallow drugs. Moore does not allege that he suffered any injuries from the alleged assault and choking, except that the x-rays taken to find CDS allegedly showed he had swollen glands.
Moore asserts that defendant Dow is being sued in her supervisory role over defendants, Carteret Police Department,Chief of Carteret Police, Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, and Assistant Prosecutor Kuberet. He also asserts a claim of malicious prosecution against Kuberet, alleging that Kuberet knew the search warrant was not legal.
Moore further claims that Middlesex County Prosecutor Kaplan failed to adequately train and/or supervise the defendants, Lispano, Celentano, Scott, Marchak Rodriguez, Ellmyer and Kuberet, who were the investigators or assistant prosecutors involved in plaintiff's prosecution. Moore alleges that Lispano filed false police reports stating that Moore had sold her drugs on several occasions, and that Lispano forged an excessive bail amount for plaintiff.
Moore next asserts a claim of supervisor liability with respect to the Chief of the Carteret Police Department who had a supervisory role over Carteret Police Officers Berrios, Dammaan, Stenetella, and the Carteret Police Department itself. Finally, Moore asserts that all of the defendants violated the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of his then-six-year old daughter, Amauriah Moore.
Moore brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking an unspecified amount in monetary damages.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996),requires a district court to review a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. The Court is required to identify cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. This action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) an“ § 1915A.
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 need not, however, credit a pro se plaintiff's "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions." Id.
A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325 (1989) (). The standard for evaluating whether a complaint is "frivolous" is an objective one. 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 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). See also Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93-94 ().
However, recently, the Supreme Court revised this standard for summary dismissal of a Complaint that fails to state a claim in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Iqbal's civil rights complaint adequately alleged defendants' personal involvement in discriminatory decisions regarding Iqbal's treatment during detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center which, if true, violated his constitutional rights. Id. The Court examined Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).1 Citing its recent opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), for the proposition that "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,' "Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), the Supreme Court identified two working principles underlying the failure to state a claim standard:
Thus, to prevent a summary dismissal, civil complaints must now allege "sufficient factual matter" to show that a claim is facially plausible. This then "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 1948. The Supreme Court's ruling in Iqbal...
To continue reading
Request your trial