TORRES v. SCUDDER et al, No. 2:2007cv05957 - Document 2 (D.N.J. 2007)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 12/21/07. (ji, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TORRES v. SCUDDER et al Doc. 2 Case 2:07-cv-05957-SDW-MCA Document 2 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LENIN TORRES, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SCUDDER, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : Civil Action No. 07-5957(SDW) OPINION APPEARANCES: LENIN TORRES, Plaintiff pro se #196356 C-5-E Hudson County Correctional Center 35 Hackensack Avenue Kearny, New Jersey 07032 WIGENTON, District Judge Plaintiff Lenin Torres ( Torres ), currently confined at the Hudson County Correctional Center in Kearny, New Jersey, seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Based on his affidavit of indigence and the absence of three qualifying dismissals within 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court will grant plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis 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) and 1915A to determine whether it Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-05957-SDW-MCA Document 2 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 2 of 7 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 the Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice. I. BACKGROUND Torres brings this action against defendants, Richard Scudder and C. Muscianesi. (Complaint, Caption). The following factual allegations by plaintiff 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. Torres complains that, on August 2, 2007, defendants conducted an illegal investigation and warrantless search and seizure without probable cause in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff further alleges that there was no presentment of an indictment to the grand jury in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Torres also contends that defendants refuse to bring a witness against him and have refused to let plaintiff speak with counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. He complains that his confinement is enforced slavery and involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Finally, Torres alleges that defendants have denied him due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Statement of Claims at ¶¶ 1-6). 2 (Compl., Case 2:07-cv-05957-SDW-MCA Document 2 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 3 of 7 Torres asks that this Court order his release from jail and have the state court charges dismissed. II. (Compl., ¶ 5). STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL The Prison Litigation Reform Act ( PLRA ), Pub. L. No. 104134, §§ 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. In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); 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. 3 Case 2:07-cv-05957-SDW-MCA Document 2 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 4 of 7 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) (interpreting the predecessor of § 1915(e)(2), the former § 1915(d)). 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)); Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981). However, where a complaint can be remedied by an amendment, a district court may not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, but must permit the amendment. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992); Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004)(complaint that satisfied notice pleading requirement that it contain short, plain statement of the claim but lacked sufficient detail to function as a guide to discovery was not required to be dismissed for failure to state a claim; district court should permit a curative amendment before dismissing a complaint, unless an amendment would be futile or inequitable); Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir. 4 Case 2:07-cv-05957-SDW-MCA Document 2 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 5 of 7 2000) (dismissal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)); Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dept., 91 F.3d 451, 453 (3d Cir. 1996). III. SECTION 1983 ACTIONS Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution. 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 state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege, first, the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56 (3d Cir. 1994). IV. ANALYSIS In his Complaint, Torres alleges numerous constitutional violations against defendants, but seeks only his release from jail and the dismissal of all state court charges against him. Thus, any claim that Torres may be attempting to assert with 5 Case 2:07-cv-05957-SDW-MCA Document 2 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 6 of 7 respect to his arrest, the charges against him, due process violations, etc. must be raised in his pending criminal proceedings in state court; a federal court generally will not intercede to consider issues that Torres has an opportunity to raise before the state court. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has enunciated three requirements that must be met before Younger abstention may be invoked: (1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims. Whenever all three of these requirements are satisfied, abstention is appropriate absent a showing of bad faith prosecution, harassment, or a patently unconstitutional rule that will cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff. Port Auth. Police Benevolent Ass'n v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey Police Dep t, 973 F.2d 169, 173 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir.1989)). Here, Torres is admittedly a pretrial detainee in the course of ongoing state criminal proceedings; thus state proceedings implicating important state interests are currently in progress and Torres has the opportunity to raise his various claims regarding his allegedly warrantless arrest, unlawful search and seizure and the other purported constitutional violations, in that proceeding. Thus, this Court is constrained by Younger to dismiss the Complaint accordingly. 6 Case 2:07-cv-05957-SDW-MCA Document 2 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 7 of 7 Further, even if Torres is eventually convicted of the alleged charges in his now-pending state criminal proceedings (or if he has since been convicted since filing this action), he must first exhaust his state court remedies by direct appeal or other available state court review, and then, if appropriate, file a federal habeas application to assert any violations of federal constitutional or statutory law. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).1 Therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed in its entirety as against the named defendants because plaintiff fails to state a claim at this time. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim at this time, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). An appropriate order follows. /s/SUSAN D. WIGENTON United States District Judge Dated: 12/21/07 1 In Preiser,, the Supreme Court held that when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. 411 U.S. at 500. 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
