Sanford-El v. Cannon
| Decision Date | 17 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 19-08776 (FLW) |
| Parties | CHARLEMAGNE BINYAMIN: SANFORD-EL, Plaintiff, v. CHRIS CANNON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
*NOT FOR PUBLICATION*
:
This matter comes before the Court on three separate motions to dismiss filed by 1) Officer Chris Cannon and Warren Municipality (the "Warren Defendants"); 2) Sergeant Frank Mongalieri, South Brunswick Municipality, Supervisor of Frank Mongalieri, Barbara Nyitrai, and municipal court Judge Spero Kalambakas (the "South Brunswick Defendants");1 and 3) Officer George Pilesky and Middlesex Municipality (the "Middlesex Defendants"). Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint of pro se Plaintiff Charlemagne Binyamin Sanford-El ("Plaintiff"), wherein he alleges conspiracy, assault, false arrest, kidnapping, and due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions are GRANTED in their entirety.
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and are accepted as true for the purpose of this Motion. On March 30, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant Frank Mongalieri stopped Plaintiff's vehicle and "deprived" him of his "right to liberty and due process[.]" Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), ¶ 29. Plaintiff claims he was in complete control and did not put the general public in danger while driving, and that Sergeant Mongalieri "applied statutes in a manner repugnant to [Plaintiff's] right to movement/migration/travel[.]" Id. at 30.
In place of his driver's license, Plaintiff alleges that he provided Sergeant Mongalieri with his "common law copyright," and his vehicle registration and insurance information. Id. at 32. Plaintiff asserts that Sergeant Mongalieri performed an "unlawful arrest" and he was "assaulted." Id. at 33. At the ensuing hearing before Judge Spero Kalambakas, Plaintiff claims that he was "falsely convicted and sentenced to a twelve (12) day imprisonment and fined $1,267.00[,]" despite raising a jurisdictional challenge. Id. at 35. According to Plaintiff, an unidentified "South Brunswick municipal prosecutor" provided the court with a "deceptively . . . good common sense 'theory' as to why he was not barred from prosecuting the repugnant claim of [Sergeant] Mongalieri[.]" Id. at 34. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Kalambakas did not uphold the "supreme law of the land," and that Plaintiff lacked a fair chance to be heard in presenting his defense. Id. at 36.
Following the hearing, Plaintiff alleges that South Brunswick Municipal Court harassed him "on a couple of instances," because it issued warrants that violated his due process rights. Id. at 37. As a result of his experience in court, Plaintiff asserts that he suffers from "severe emotional distress" and post-traumatic stress "when dealing with police officers and municipal courts." Id. at 44.
On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Chris Cannon stopped him despite lacking "probable cause or jurisdiction." Id. at 54. During the stop, Plaintiff asserts that he spoke to Officer Cannon's "superiors," who failed to provide Plaintiff with probable cause for the stop, and the illegal "search and seizure" that followed. Id. at 55. According to Plaintiff, despite being "assaulted" based on an "unlawful arrest" and transported to jail, he was never given a "reasonable opportunity to be heard in [Officer] Cannon's repugnant claims against" Plaintiff. Id. at 57.
On May 23, 2017, Plaintiff alleges that Officer George Pilesky arrested him without probable cause, after Plaintiff had already returned to his residence and removed the car keys from the ignition of his "non-commercial truck." Id. at 45-46. Despite performing an arrest, Plaintiff asserts that Officer Pilesky failed to read him his Miranda rights, and proceeded to handcuff and grope Plaintiff during a non-consensual search. Id. at 46-47. Thereafter, Plaintiff asserts that he was transported against his will to the Middlesex Police Station, where Officer Pilesky "found a void warrant issued by Middlesex Municipal Court for failure to appear in violation of R.7:2-4(b)." Id. at 48, 51. According to Plaintiff, the ensuing "case" was transferred to New Brunswick, and municipal court Judge Hoebich refused to provide him with the opportunity to be heard, based on the informal attire that Plaintiff was wearing—"a basketball jersey with no sleeves." Id. at 52.
In addition, Plaintiff asserts that the following four municipalities conspired against him, and issued illegal warrants in violation of "R.7:2-4(b)": "Middlesex Municipal Court, South Brunswick Municipal Court, Hawthorne Municipal Court, and Prospect Municipal Court." Id. at 22. Although "Warren Municipality" is also included as a named municipal defendant in thecaption of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff directs no factual allegations against it in the pleadings.
On March 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants. The original complaint named the following individuals and entities as defendants: Sergeant Mongalieri; "Court Prosecutor"; Judge Kalambakas; "South Brunswick Municipality"; "Supervisor of Sergeant Mongalieri"; and Barbara Nyitrai. On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that named as defendants Officer Cannon, Officer Pilesky, "C. Calabro," "C. Bonagura," "B. Flynn," James Iandoli, "PTL Celoski," "Warren Municipality"; "Prospect Park Municipality"; "Bloomingdale Municipality"; "Middlesex Municipality"; and "Haledon Municipality."2 Thus, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint removed the following parties as defendants, although allegations against the latter two remain in the body of the complaint: "Supervisor of Sergeant Mongalieri," Barbara Nyitrai, "Court Prosecutor," and Judge Kalambakas.3
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants conspired to deprive his constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alsobrings a cause of action against the Municipalities for "trespassing" on his "due process rights," and alleges that each of the "unlawful arrest[s]" to which the officer defendants subjected Plaintiff constitutes a "separate charge of assault." In addition, Plaintiff raises "false arrest" and "kidnapping" claims as a result of each illegal "traffic stop," and asserts that the "unlawful conviction in the "South Brunswick Municipal Case" amounts to an improper "double jeopardy" violation.
In the instant matter, Defendants, among other things, move to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as time-barred. Because Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants' motions before the applicable opposition date, the Court issued a Letter Order advising Plaintiff that three separate dismissal motions had been filed against him. In the Letter Order, the Court also cautioned Plaintiff that, if he did not respond to Defendants' motions to dismiss on or before July 20, 2020, Defendants' motions would be deemed unopposed. Despite this warning, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants' motions, and thus, the Court deems the motions unopposed.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "courts accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) does not require that a complaint contain detailed factual allegations, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions,and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). Therefore, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to raise a plaintiff's right to relief above the speculative level, so that a claim "is plausible on its face." Id. at 570; Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). "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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
To determine whether a plaintiff has met the facial plausibility standard, courts within this Circuit engage in a three-step progression. Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010). First, the court must "outline the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim for relief." Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 365 (3d Cir. 2012). Next, the Court "peel[s] away those allegations that are no more than conclusions and thus not entitled to the assumption of trust." Id. Finally, where "there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 67
Here, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. "The obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings is well-established." Higgs v. AG of the United States, 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). "Courts are to construe complaints so as to do substantial justice, keeping in mind that pro se complaints in particular should be construed liberally." Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citation omitted). "Liberal construction does not, however, require the Court to credit a pro se plaintiff's 'bald assertions' or 'legalconclusions.'" Grohs v. Yatauro, 984 F. Supp. 2d 273, 282 (D.N.J. 2013) (quoting ...
To continue reading
Request your trial