GATSON et al v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al, No. 2:2009cv01658 - Document 6 (D.N.J. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 11/02/2009. (nr, )

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DANIEL GATSON, et al., Civil Action No. 09 1658 (SRC) P Ia ± n t ± ffs, OPINION STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et aT., Defendants. APPEARANCES: DANIEL GATSON, Plaintiff #PN438674/75039 Northern State Prison se P.O. Box 2300 Newark, New Jersey 07114 ANTHONY RANKS, Plaintiff pro se 478 Park Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11205 CHESLER, District Judge Plaintiffs, Daniel Gatson, a convicted state prisoner currently confined at the Northern State Prison in Newark, Jersey, and Anthony Hanks, Brooklyn, New York, residing at 47$ Park Avenue in seek to bring this action Both Plaintifis provide affidavits of indigency. Plaintiffs affidavits of indigency, forma pauperis. Based on and the absence of three qualifying dismissals within 28 U.S.C. plaintiff Daniel Gatson, New § 1915(g) with respect to the Court will grant both Plaintiffs applications 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, to 28 U.S.C. the Court must review the Complaint, §5 1915(e) (2) and 1915A, pursuant 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 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 in its entirety. I. Plaintiffs, ( Ranks ) , BACKGROUND Daniel Gatson State of New Jersey; Anne Milgram, Attorney General; Somerset County, Somerset County Prosecutors; Richard Ike; Newman; Prosecutor; Bryant, New Jersey; Jr.; Sgt. New Jersey; John Molinelli, Parsippany Township, Sgt. Russell W. Wenzel; New Jersey; Brian Office of the Bergen County Prosecutor; Wayne Mello, Shea; Lieutenant Timothy J. New Jersey; Watchung Borough, Assistant Prosecutor; Czulada; Prosecutor; Matthew Captain Ronald Thornburg; Warren Township, Bergen County, Office of the Detective Christopher J. Detective Robert L. Norris County, New Jersey New Jersey; Wayne Forrest, Assistant Prosecutor; Captain Thomas Dunne; Leffert; and Anthony Hanks bring this civil action against the following defendants: Murphy, ( Gatson ), John W. Donohue, Assistant Prosecutor; New Jersey; Thomas Troy Hills Township, Cd ¢ cc CD S cc H o CD o ¢ o a w N) Cii O it Di C H Hz I Hi 0 0 ft N) 6) Di ft cc 0 Z cc Di H CD C -cm o Hi p. 9 o C Z ft HZ ft Z CD 0 Z CD C Di Hft Z CD Di ft Z Di 4 CD Di Z a cc HZ ft HHi Hi Di 0 H S Z a Di Hi H 0 CD HN CD a cc H 0 Z C Hi C H H C S cc ft Z CD a CD Hi 0 o Di ft Di Z a . ft ft C CD CD 0 Z CD C S C ¢ H0 Z cc 0 0 0 H CD cc 0 Hi Hi HC) HDi H Z a Di . CD Z C) HC CD H 0 Hi 0 H 00 H C) Di CD fricc cc Z ft HHi Z Hi CD cc C Di H H ft 0 H 0 0 CD H 0 CD H cc 0 Z Di H Z ft H Di 0 Di Z a Di B CD o Z I C) cc C H Z ft H CD ft 0 Z o C a H Di H H CD C CD rP a HH CD Di Di Hi it o S CD cc C cc H- 5 0 H o cc CD C) C ft H0 Z 9 Di H HC) H0 C cc ¢ ft H CD cc cc cc a H- 0 ft H0 Z Di H CD 0 Hi H0 Z ct Z Hi H fr C) fr P H- Z C H- CD C H Di H Cr a fr- cc it cc HHi Hi ft 0 H Di HZ ¢ Z ft Z CD xl 0 C H ft CD Di Z a xi HHi ft Z xi 0 C H ft ft Z CD HH 0 Hi 0 H Di ft H0 Z cc fr- cc ft 4 C Z H Cf 5 CD Z a S CD Z Di H H-cc Z 0 ft CD Di cc Z ft cc HCD 0 H ft Z Di H ft Z Di Di ft Z a ft Z Z CD CD C H a HCD C Hi CD CD Z Z ft a Di Z 0 Hi ft 0 H ft cc ft Z CD ft C ft CD H- C) 0 Z cc ft cc C) ft H0 Z Di w Di Z a H a 0 CA CA ¢ C) ¢ C ¢ U) k) a C Z a CD H ft H0 Z C) Di ft Z Hcc C Z fri- 0 H cc Hi Hi I- - Z ft H- H Di ¢ Di H H CD C Di ft H0 Z cc cc V H Di HZ ft HHi Hi 0 Hi 4 CD H Di C) Hft C CD Z ft ft 0 Di cc Hi fr Z a HZ C cc Z o CD Di a 5 cc Z Di C) 0 C H ft S Z CD ¢ 0 Z H C C) H CD CD Z HZ C cc ft Z Hcc 0 Hi CD cc cc t C H 0 0 Hi 0 H CD a it Di C) C) CD 0 Di H CD Di Z a 0 H Di HZ ft S C) 0 pi 5 CD Z a CD a a Di Z C) 0 S 0 H Di HZ ft ft Z CD 5 Hi H 0 Di r CD Z ct Di H CD cc Di H H CD C Di ft H0 Hi Di C) ft C Di H C Z Hi 0 H H 0 S H- Z CD ¢ Di n ft H0 Z ft Z CD ft 0 ¢ ¢ C) Co ¢ 4 C Z Di Z CD CD Z S HH H H0 S 0 Z 0 H Di C H CD Z ft Z CD Di Z a CD H cc CD C C-j CD S Z 0 Hi C) 0 C H ft C 0 CD H H0 H Ci) Z CD ft Z 0 H Di H- S C) 0 HH CD ft Z a CD Z 5 0 Hi -.. ç C a C CD ¢ C) ¢ Ci) ¢ 4 C Di ft Di H H- 5 Z CD 0 ft a a Di ft 0 ft H 0 ¢ cc ft HHi Hi Z H- H Di IV N) 0 0 a 1 ) a , ft cc C C C 7$ 0 Z ¢ a I w Id p4 a Di Z -. C) 0 H Z CD c 3 H Di Z ¢ Z 0 Di Di Z C HC H H- ft ¢ 3 0 C CD H t i Z ft Hft HCD cc > Z Di ft Z Di H H CD cc ft 0 Di t0 CD t HDi Z . C4 CD H cc CD C Z CD 5 < fl 0 C Z o Di C H t. fr 4 Di Z Hft Hcc Z C4 0 Z H 0 Di Z Z Hcc z a H- CD t- CD H 4 Di Z Hft Hcc it C cc HZ CD cc cc Di Z a D it C) 0 CD 0. fr- I H H 0 C at Di HZ . Di Di HCj Z 5 0 ft 0 ft Z HZ 0 C) Z Di 0 0 0 ft ft CD 0 Hcc 0 Di Z Hi HH CD Z H ft Z C H H CD 0 0 H Di Z 0 Z CD ft cc a Di Z ft Z Q. CD Hi CD 0 Z cc Z C a z HC) 0 H CD ft ft H- Di H a t HC) ft Di Z a H Di H t Di cc Di C) :i Di CD H Z H- CD H CO CD C 4 C. Z CD S Bto H. 0 CtP1P1Co t P1tot CDH to 0P1Ct LTiHiCt XHi1<P1 CD 0 H. H.OtoHi CCDCDCD H.P1 H. CtP1N toCDCt x a° OP1Ct Ct00 CDaCD a tCDCt H 0tYP1 0 P1CCD a H.Ct CtOto 4 OCH. o aH CtCtZ 4CDr 0 0 1 0P1Ct H 000 P1 P1P1CDH. OtoP1O 0 0 CDto CDCt P1 0 a CDB 8 CDP1. CD 01< CDH.a aaC, Z CDZ mrt a P1H. tTil- ¢4 4H. H.CD H. P1 H. to Ct 0 0 0 CD P1 0 ¢ Cl) a Ct Ct 0 P1 P1 Hi Hi I 0 CD ¢ C) P1 Ct to 0 0 0 Hi CD to Ct H. a P1 Ct H. 0 Z 4 I . P1 P1 P1 P1 0 Ct to to CD P1 P1 0 0 Ct tT P1 CD CD 0 Hi C) CD P1 Z C H. to to P1 a H P1 P1 H. CD to C C P1 0 P1 0 a o 0 CD to CD CD H. P1 Nt C 0 P1 F- CD H. 0 0 P1 P1 Ct H. a CD 0 P1 0 Ct 0 CD 0 0 I a 0 H. 0 a (-p P1 c 0) CD > 0 CD Ct 0 Hi CD B to 0 to Ct P1 to 0 Ct P1 Z 0 CD 4 P1 Q. CD ii P1 CD P1 to CD Ct B Cl) 0 Ct 0 CD Ps) 0 0 H Ct CD 4 CD H H. CD C s 0 P1 to 4 0 Ct 0 CD P1 ft a P1 P1 0 0 H. to to H. 0 a C P1 to o P1 Ct to 0 0 H 6) P1 Ct to 0 0 0 Hi CD B 0 0 CD Ct P1 to H I- CD P1 to CD Ct to D 0 b P1 H. Hi P1 0 i Ct P1 C 0 Ct H CD a H. a CD 1 0 CD 4 CD -3 0 H. to ¢ C) P1 Ct to 0 0 4 C C to CD a o P1 Ct 0 a H. a CD H 0 Z C P1 Ct 0 Ct 6) P1 0 Ct CD CD to P1 V 0 0 0000 C C H to H. H. 0 P1 0 to CD 0 Ct 0 CD B P1 Ct 0 P1 C 0 Ct 0 CD 4 C CD C a H to 4 Hi N) P1 -J 0 0 P1 0 ¢ to CD 0 C> Ct 0 0 0 P1 0 P1 to a H. 0 0 Hi a H Hi 1< H. 0 CD 0 0 B P1 0 a CD P1 1< i Ct C 0 0 H. Ct 0 E Ct H. 0 0 CD C) 0 0 C) H. 0 C 0 P1 Ct H H. 1 CD P1 W P1 1< C.Ji w H 0 H. P1 0 H. Hi B 0 H. C40HiHi P1 0 0 P1 H P1 P1 r co H. 0 P1 Ct 0 CD 0 P1 0 CD Ct 0 CD P1 0 0 H H. 0 P1 Ct H. 0 0 CD n P1 P1 0 CD ) Ct 0 CD H. 0 Ct P1 H. H CD a H. Z Hi 0 P1 Ct to CD Ct 0 0 0 0 CD to 0 CD H H P1 P1 H. o C to 4 0 0 0 P1 a CD P1 0 0 C P1 Ct H. P1 4 P1 H. Z CD a Ct C 0 H. P1 CD Ct P1 0 to E C a 0 0 CD 0 P1 to to C P1 CD 0 0 P1 a to to C 4 P1 P1 H. 0 Hi H. a CD 0 Ct H. P1 H 0 0 E CD i-i CD B E D 0 0 Hi 4 CD P1 0 C to B Z C CD a 4 0 H 4 H. Ct E 0 e z Ct to H. 0 Hi 0 Ct 0 P1 CD CD B Hi P1 0 6) P1 Ct to 0 0 P1 a P1 H. 0 to Ct CD 0 0 CD B t H 0 4 CD CD to CD 0 C Ct 0 P1 H. P1 H to 0 P1 0 P1 0 a CD 0 Ct to a CD 0 P1 P1 Ct 0 H H. 0 CD at H. CD P1 Ct Y CD P1 CD a a H. 0 Z E z 0 P1 P1 H. W CD P1 a CD 0 H. 0 H. Ct Ct CD a 0 0 C P1 a H P1 ,1 H. CD to C Hi 0 P1 c Ct P1 to 0 CD 0 C Ct 0 0 X P1 0 a P1 to CD Ct N) 0 to 0 H Cl) ¢ 0 C C H 4 P1 0 a n to H O H P1 Ct CD E CD CD Z Ct CD C to Z Ct H. C 0 0 B H. Ct 0 H P1 H. Z Ct 0 0 4 a CD 0 Ct H. P1 H P1 CD CD P1 0 C to 0 0 Hi CD to n H. a P1 Ct H. 0 0 H. 0 0 P1 0 CD Ti 0 Hi CD 0 Ct - . to Ct 0 CD CD P1 CD 0 Ct 0 CD P1 P1 0 a 6) P1 Ct to 0 Ct 0 P1 Ct P1 0 It P1 CD to P1 c P1 to 4 CD to H. 0 P1 CD Z CD B C) 0 P1 4 Ct V Cl) I H .0 P1 H. C) a o H a < Ct 0 CD H. P1 H. Ct 0 H P1 H. 0 Ct H. Hi Hi C CD a B a H. P1 a P1 0 H a a 0 Hi H. CD 0 CD to 0 H P1 Z a 4 I H H 1< H 9 g P1 P1 t- 1< a L CD H. CD 0 . H. a CD a 0 P1 0 Ct to B CD 0 a 0 0 C CD t H C) P1 P1 P1 ts) obtained during the two year investigation, as mentioned above, as well as confirmation that Carson ad no identifiable legitimate income. The Somerset County Prosecutor s Office sought the issuance of three search warrants based upon probable cause to believe that the fruits of criminal activity would be found in the three identified locations, residence of Daniel Gatson; grandmother, and (3) Iva Gatson, (2) namely, (1) the the residence of Daniel Gatson s with whom Gatson had previously resided; the residence of Robin Treadvance, Gatson s aunt, with whom Gatson had phone conversations concerning money transactions. The search warrants were issued on July 30, by the Honorable Arthur N. D Italia, A.J.S.C. (Compi., Ex. 2001, N). All of the property sought by Plaintiffs in this action were seized pursuant to the search warrants, on July 31, 2001. Some of the property seized formed the basis for Gatson s indictment and eventual conviction in November 2004 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, under Indictment No. 01 11-2672. Gatson appealed his New Jersey state court conviction and sentence. On direct review, Gatson raised arguments regarding the search warrants, contending that they were obtained unlawfully and in violation of his constitutional rights. The conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, on November 1, 2007, but the matter was remanded for sentencing in light of State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 182 (2006) The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on February 6, 2008. State v. Gatson, 194 N.J. 269 (2008) . 5 Gatson admits that he has filed several actions in state court for replevin with respect to the property at issue in this case. On December 9, 2005, Gatson filed a civil action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, against Wayne Forrest, Law [ivision, Docket No. Somerset County, Som-L l733-05. transferred to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County under docket rio. favor of defendant, L 3l81-07. Wayne Forrest, County was granted on July 18, Summary judgment in dismissing Gatson s Complaint for the return of the monies sought. affirmed, Law Division, the Prosecutor of Somerset 2008, from tie order of summary judgment, The matter was Gatson appealed and the Appellate Division finding that summary judgment was properly granted because defendants were entitled to prevail as a matter of law. 3 See Gatson v. Sept. 29, Forrest, 2009 WL 3082063 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2009) On August 8, 2008, Matthew Murphy, Assistant Prosecutor for the Somerset County Prosecutor s Office wrote to Gatson advising plaintiff that the Office wished to return certain personal property to plaintiff, including the 1999 Bayliner Boat and $8,938.00 held on account, which had been seized during the The Appellate Division noted that the money seized from the home of Gatson s aunt, pursuant to the search warrant on July 31, 2001, was packaged in a manner so precisely matching the description of cash register receipts wrapping the stolen cash from the Arvinitises home, that the Somerset County Prosecutor s Office released the cash, plus interest, to the Arvinitises on August 24, 2001. The amount released was $253,310.00, which was the amount sought by Gatson in his replevin action and in this action. 6 NJ N Cl N C) it CD Cl H it it CD N N Di it 5 C) C) 0 0 C) CD C) C&) NJ CD C) N CD N 0 H N CD H H- IN IN 0 N 5 it 0 H HN C) C) CD CD Cl HN 5 N 0 it N H0 N it C) Cl C) C) 0) - - C) ¢ it it Cl it NJ (Y it N C) N - C) C) it C) C) it C) H H H- H H- H- C) C) NJ NJ it NJ it Cli N C) 5 H it C) Cl) it U) Cl U) it Cl H Cli C) Cl C/) C) C) C/) C) C) C) it 0 it it 0 C) it N HN it C) C) Cl Cl) C) Cl Cl C) 0 N it H0 N CC) H it H- Cli NJ CD C) C) 0 (Ii H- it C) CD it C) HCD H H CD 0 it it Di it N H it C) H o (1) C) 0 HN it it it C) N it H HC) it N N CO H- H HN 0 N CD H 0 H H- it N CD jQ CD it - CD it it o N N Cl it H- ¢ Di C) CD N HN N it H0 Hit S it C) N Cl N it 5 0 H CD C) CD 5 N N CD Cl H CD H- it H- it it N N C) N N C) N co N C) C) H CD C) CD it CD C) C) N Cl it CD H 5 ¢ it N C) Cl H H- CD N it N Cl CD N 5 C) -, N N it H0 C) N CD 0 C) H N N H- CD H N HN CD N N Cl N C) N N CD H it N it N it N HN it H- it C) CD it H H) ) CD Li- N 0 it H0 N it it C) 0 it N 5 HH H0 it N it H0 N 0 it N it N HN it Hit it it N N C) H N H- CD N N 0 C) C) H N CD Cl 0 it N CD N H C) Cl C) N it Cl CD N HN it CD N Cl CD 5 N 0 N N CD it it N N - C) H0 0 N it Cl Di it H- S Hit it Di CD N it S Cl N 5 CD C) C) 0 N H it Cl it Cl CD H- - N Cl 0 N - 5 it H H) N C) NJ 0 C) C) CD it Cl it N HN it C) Cl N it 5 CD 0 N H- C) 0 N H it CD Cl C) CD N Cl CD Cl 5 N CD N N Cl Cl it CD CD ¢ Hit it ill (I) H- Cl it N it C) 0 C) it C) CD 0) NJ it C) C) * Cl) C) it 0) CO it - 0 C) it C) it C) C) 0 H C) N N HN N it H0 N N it 0 H H C) C) it N H- Cl N it H CD N C) CD Cl N N it N 0 N N N CD N it N it it N H) H C) N CD HH N C) H CD C) Cl H- Cl HN it HN CD H H) Cl N C) it C) C) N C) N it N 0 N N N Cl N N Cl C) HN C) C) C) Cli - NJ Co O J it H) CD 5 N N Cl N CD HN CD CD Cl it H CD it it 0 it it 0 H) N CD 5 CD Cl it it 0 H CD it N H N CD it Cl N CD CD C) N it Hit it N H- N it C) Cl it S Cl CD H H C) NJ C) N Cl N N N N Cl ¢ N N CD it HH CD Cl S H- N HC) N it it H) H- C) N 0 N C) N H0 N it H N CD it it H- N CD N HN C) N Cl CD Cl N N it N) it it Cl N N it N it CD N it N 0 it Hit it N N C) it N H- C) N N CD N N H- it CD H N CD C) H CD H Cl N N 0 it it CD Cl H- Cl N) 0 H 0 N CD C) N it 0 C) H H) it 0 N )i it Cl C) Cl N C) it CD H it 0) NJ N CD 5 0 U) N H- Cl it Hit CD NJ C) C) NJ - it it N C) N H- H) 0 N N it C) CD N C) CD H it HN C) it it C) N N NJ C) it Cli C) it 0 0 H CD C) H) CD it Cl 0 C) Cl 0 it HN CD it it H- Cl 0 N HC) CD N Cl LJ- N H- HN Hit N C) it H0 N H HN N H N it Cl N it CD CD C) C) N C) C) H CD Hit N H H N N C) CD N N C) 5 C) Cli )) Cl HCl Hit - * it C) C) 0 - ¢ Cl CD H) Cl Cl H) CD C) it it H- 0 S - it Cl CD H C/) CD C) it CD Cl H) it it N C) CD 5 0 it Q N N it N C) H it Cl CD Cl N Cl H HN CD H) Cl N H C) C) N it H0 N C) HN H CD N it H- CD N H it HCD H C) C) H 0 it Cl CD H- C) N HN HN 5 it H CD H Cl CD 0 L< Cl H it H) Cl HN C) N C) N N it C) CD it N Cl CD CD CD Cl 5 N H- it 0 C) H 0 C) C 0 N it Cl it CD CD N it N C) N < 5 N) C) C) Co NJ C) C) -, it C) it 0 Cl CD H 0 CX) U CD N) CD H- HCD N) H H- N) CD C) N) CD H U) CD U C CD C) N) CD HN) C: CD N) U - N) CD U) U) ¢ C CD - N) U) CD CD CD HCD U) N) CD CD X) U) N) CD N) CD S HN) N) HCD ¢ <1 C CD N HN) HN) CD CD U U) N) o H o CD CD CD C) CD U) CD H U) CD U) U N) U H- N) U C H CD U) S o C) 0 N) 0 N) CD H U) H CD N) HU U) U H- N) H co N) CD CD H N) U) CD H U) N) U) U C 0 C) - U 0 N) H N) CD U) CD N) CD CD U) o H CD H0 N) U) ¢ CD U CD U - U) HCD N) ¢ N) H CD U CD CD CD CD H N) HC) U) U) CD N) Cl) N) HN) N) U U) N) CD H- CD CD 0 H CD CD CD 0 H CD U) ¢ HN) N) N) N) CD HU U) U) CD N) N) 0 N) CD U) 0 H CD 1 N) CD 0 CD N) S N) HU) U) N) N) U H o C) CD H C U) CD H U) S 0 H CD N) H CD U) N) U H CD U) CD U) U CD C) N) CD U) N) CD CD HU N) CD H CD U C) N) CD S N) U) CD HCD U U) CD U) CD H- U CD Cr) HU U) N) N) 0 N) CD C) U) CD CD N) N) CD N) N) N) N) 0 U) U CD CD H U) U) U) ¢0 CD U) N) S CD CD - U) 0 CD N) N) CD U) U) CD CD co ¢ U) ¢ C: CD C: F- N) CD N) U CD S U U) U) HN) CD U C: U) CD U CD N) CD F- 4 CD N) CD 0 U) CD N) 0 N) 0 H N) CD U H- L< N) N) H CD CD U) N) H- H N) U CD CD N) H U 0 0 U H CD CD N) N) CC) U) H- C) N) 0 N) U ¢ C) CD U H ¢ N) CD CD N) ¢ HH C) U) U) - N) N) HU N) CD N) S U) C) 0 U) CD N) U H- CD U U) CD N) H0 CD CD N) N) ¢ U N) U) H < <1 - U) CD U) U) CD N) U C) C CD) H H- 5 U U) CD C) U) HCD CD U U) CD N) HN) N) U N) CD H- U) N) U) CD - U N) N) CD H- U) 5 C) 0 CD (I) U CD CD CD U) U H- U) C) CD CD 0 H 0 H IC) CD 0 N) HCD U C) -< C) CD U N) N) H- U) CD N) U CD CD CD U U) U H- U CD CD CD HU U) U) H 0 C) CD CD U) CD H- U) U CD CD H U H HCD 0 U) CD HCD CD N) Cl) 0 U C) CD CD U U) CD U) U CD CC) N) - CD U) N) CD N) U) U) C) U) ¢ C: a) N) U) 0 N) U) CD H U U) U HCD CD CD N) 5 HCD U) N) 0 H 5 N) H 0 U U CD 5 5 H- HCD XC U) 0 N) CD U U) CD U N) 0 CD tO CD U CD N) 0 CD C) N) --i- U CD HCD U N) H0 U) U) ¢ C) ¢ U) C: N) co ¢ H CD N) HCD N) U) CD C) C) Cl) H U) H- ¢ U) N) CD N) U) U CD U) N) - U) U U U) CD - CD U CD N) CD U) U) N) CD N) U) H CD CD U H- C) CD N) U) CD N) CD C) CD - U N) CD HU) U H- U) H- H S CD CD N) CD U N) U U) CD CD CD U) CD U) U) H- U H- N) U) U CD N) 5 0 U H N) C__) U) ¢ N) HN) N) U N) CD H- U) N) C: CD r- - U) CD H U CD H o - N) N) C) C) - CD 0 N) U) CD CD CD CD U) <1 <: CD CD CD N) CD U) N) N) 0 N) CD N) N) U CD N) H CD CD N) CD U) -, CD C) C) CD U 0 N) U) CD U CD H- 1 N ¢ CD CD N) N) C) HH ¢ U) U) CX) C) CD - N) o CD U) U) ¢ U) U) H N) CD U) N) CD H N) C) <: U C) N) CD 0 o U) o o U) U o U) CD H H- CD 5 N) H 0 H CD N) HCD N) -C S 0 U CD N) CD H CD CD CD CD 0 H - U) N) CD U U) H CD CD U) 5 CD < H CD N) HCD N) U) C) U) H- 0 U U U) U CD HU) CD U N) HN) < 5 N) CD H- C) CD CD N) CD N) CD 0 N) N) CD HN) CD CD U HC) H0 N) 5 CD - U CD 0 S H U CD CD U 0 U) < U) 0 CD N) U) CD H- 0 N) CD H CD CD CD U) H CD N) 0 HH CD U) U H CD U) C) N) H H- HCD U) CD N) N) S N) CD H- C) -C U CD S H N) HN) -C U CD 0 H CD CD U) N) 0 CD HCD CD S HCD H N) U C) 0 CD U N) CD U) HCD U) 0 IC) lCD CD U Cl) N) 0 U) CD CD U 5 C) N) CD H- N) CD U) N) CD N) U CD HN former § 1915 (d) ) The standard for evaluating whether a . complaint is frivolous is an objective one. States, 67 F.3d 1080, A 1086 87 (3d Cir. Deutsch v. United 1995). 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. Gibson, at 93 94 355 U.S. Haines, 41, 404 U.S. 45 46 (1957)) at 521 . (quoting Conley v. See also Erickson, (In a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint, 551 U.S. the Court reviewed whether the complaint complied with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 (a) (2) However, recently, the Supreme Court refined this standard for summary dismissal of a Complaint that fails to state a claim in Ashcroft v. Igbal, 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, violated his constitutional rights. 8 (a) (2) Id. if true, The Court examined Rule 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). Citing its recent opinion in Bell 1 Rule 8(d) (1) provides that [e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). 9 Atlantic Corn. v. Twomblv, 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, Igbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twomblv, 550 U.S. at 555), the Supreme Court identified two working principles underlying the failure to state a claim standard: First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice ... . Rule B ... does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not show[n] that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). labal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 1950 (citations omitted). The Court further explained that a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausible give rise to an entitlement to relief. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. 10 Thus, to prevent a summary dismissal, civil complaints must now ¢aileqe 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 Ccurt s ruling in Iqbal emphasizes that a ulaintiff must demonstrate that the allegations of his complaint is plausible. also Twcmbly, F.3d , 505 U.S. at 555, 2009 WL 2501662, Consequently, & n.3; *4 . at 1949-50; Fowler v. (3d Cir., UP4C Shadyside, Aug. 18, 2009). the Third Circuit observed that Igbal provides the final nail in the coffin for the no set of facts standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 46 applied to federal complaints before Twombly. 2501662, *5 ¢ (1957), that Fowler, 2009 WL The Third Circuit now requires that a district court must conduct the two-part analysis set forth in Iqbal when presented with a motion to dismiss: First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. [labal, 129 5.Ct. at 1949 501. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the [n.] In Conley, as stated above, a district court was permitted to summarily dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only if it appear[ed] beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Id., 355 U.S. at 45 46. Under t5is no set of facts standard, a complaint could effectively survive a motion to dismiss so long as it contained a bare recitation of the claim s legal elements. 11 plaintiffs entitlement to relief. A complaint has to show such an entitlement with its facts. See Phills, 515 F.3d at 234 35. As the Supreme Court instructed in lobal, [w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, me complaint has alleged-but t has not show [n that the pleader is entitled to relief. Ibal, [129 S.Ct. at 1949-50] This plausibility determination will be a context specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. . . Fowler, 2009 WL 2501662, *5 This Court is mindful, however, that the sufficiency of this p se pleading must be construed liberally in favor of Plaintiff, (2007) even after Iqbal. Moreover, . See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 a court should not dismiss a complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim without granting leave to amend, unless it finds bad faith, futility. 111 See Grayson v. (3d Cir. 2002); undue delay, Mayview State Hosp., Shane v. Fauver, prejudice or 293 F.3d 103, 213 F.3d 113, 117 110- (3d Cir. 2000) III. SECTION 1983 ACTIONS Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 ... . 12 .. Thus, to state a claim for relief under § 1953, aliege, first, the violation of a right a plaintiff must secured by the Constituti.on or laws of the United States and, second, that the alleed decrivation was committed or caused by a cerson acting under color of state law. (1958 ; Piecknick v. West v. Atkins, Pennsylvania, 487 U.S. 36 P. 3d 1250, 42, 48 1255 56 t3d Cir. 1994) Most all of the named defendants are state actors, named defendants Liane Abed, Robert Grogan, Arvanitis and Martha Arvanitis, except loannis John who are private citizens that were burglarized and had their stolen property returned to them by the prosecutors defendants, offices. Accordingly, not being state actors, these individual will be dismissed from this action. Additionally, the State of New Jersey must be dismissed from this action pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any sLit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. proposition, or As a general a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in a state treasury is barred from federal court by the Eleventh Amendment, unless Eleventh Amendment immunity is waived by the state itself 13 N) CD it Di N CD Di a H- it C) 0 C) N it it C) C) ¢ H) CD a CD it a N it Hit Di it H0 C) N C) it H- 0 it N it Di it C) it CD CD a Ft C) N) -< N H- H- C) N C) C) it Di H- Di it it Hit Hit H) a 0 N N H- it CD a it N CD C) it H) Di it Di C) 0 0 ¢ C) ¢ it < 0 C) N it H- Di N) Di C) C) Hit it CD C) N) CD a HN N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N HDi it CD N a C) C) a CD N HN C) HN a CD a a C) it o C) N N o Ft C) CD C) N o N it it N Di C) H- N) CD CD ¢ 0 C) N H- Hit Di it C) H- it 0 it N it Di it C) it CD CD a it CD N a C) C) a HN N CD N H- a CD a C) Ft C) C) 0 it CD it it Di H) C) CD a Di C) - C) 0 C) C) it H) C) N) CD N N) CD it 0 N it CD a it H)5 0 it CD N CD HN a it it 0 N H) C) 0 C) C) it C) N) CD N N) CD it 0 N 0 N it it N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N C) ¢ C) a C) 0 - it N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N it H) C) C) 0 C) N) CD N CC) CD HC) CD it it H- it it 0 C) N Di C) 0 it H) C) C) 0 C) N) CD N N) CD C) CD a it 0 it it it HC) CD 0 CD a it it H) C) C) 0 C) CD N N CD it C) N) 0 it 0 N 0 N Ft C) C) C) it 0 N C) N 0 N CD N Ft X) N N H- - CD C) a 0 C) it N 0 N CD it CD it N 0 it C) Di it N N HN C) 0 N C) C) Di N N Di C) it a N CD Di N C) Di it 0 it C) N N C) Di C) it it N 0 it CD N it H) N it it it Di HC) it H it 0 it N CD HN C) N CD it it N 0 N it H) C) 0 C) C) CD N N CD it C) N) 0 CD a it 0 it 0 it it HC) CD CD a it CD it C) N N HN it Di - H) it N 2) 0 N N CD Di H) C) CD - C) N it a C) C) it 0 N it CD a it Di it it N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N it H) C) 0 C) C) CD N N CD t N) 0 C) CD it H) C) Di N N 0 N CD C) C) it 0 N it N it Di it CD CD a it it Di N) Di HC) N N C) Di H- it C) - Hit it N it it it Di HC) N C) Di H- it C) 0 N HDi it Ft it N 0 N CD C) C t) H) N) it N) Xt it ¢ it it N) N) J N) it - N) Ni Ni ¢ N) ¢ C) C) C) - Di C) a 0 N C) ¢ ) C) CD N C) ¢ a CD <) CD C) it it 21 N N it Di it CD Di CD a CD N N H- 0 C) it C) 0 CD N a Co Ni N) it H- 0 C) C) Hit H) ¢ N) CD C) it ¢ C) H- Ft CD C) u C) a CX) CD it CX) N) Cii it N) CC) Ni -U C) Di a C)) N Di N CD C) it C) C) C 2) CD CD N) ¢ it Di C) Ht HCD N Di C) 0 it it HC) HDi it CD a it it CD Di it N Di a H) it C) 0 C) N CD C) N CD C) it a Di a CD HN it HC) N it it HC) CD N CD it H- N CD it 0 it it CD it CD a Ft 0 it it CD N N a Di N N) N CD N Q C) ¢ < o Ui CX) C) C) Di C) C) CD N it Di it CD a CD N ). Di it ¢ N Di it Ft H- it Q N it C) N it Di C) C). it Di N) Di H- N) CD N Di C) Di a H) CD C) C) 0 it 0 N N HFt N C) it C) 0 C N CD N Di it a CD it N Di N a it C) CD C) a CD C) - Di N it -< it H- C) N) H- CX) N) it - C) C) it N) Ft it 0 0 a N) C) CD it N) it Di C) N N it a C) C) it CD ¢ Ft a Co CD C) a N) N) r C) 0 C) CD N Di it a it CD HC) N C) Hit C) it N C) N it C) CD C) rt N Di CD it a a Di C) Di N) CD C) C) HCD N HN CD it C) a N it Di it it N 0 it CD C) it N C) it CD C) a S CD C) a it CD C) N it it CD CD -3 ¢ C) it N) Ni - Ni CX) (ii it 0) C) Di C) a 0 N N C) Di C) it CD it a * CD - CD CD N) it CD C) it Di it N it CD C)CD N Di it a 0 N [A] state prosecuting attorney who act[s] within the scope of his duties in initiatinc and pursuing a criminal prosecuior is not amenable to suit under § 1983. 409, 410 (1976) Thus, . imbier v. Pachtman, 124 U.S. a prosecutor s appearance in court as an advocate in support of an application for a search warrant and the presentation of evidence at such a hearing are protected by absolute immunity. Similarly, Burns v, Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 492 (1991) acts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of udicia1 proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, entitled to the protections of absolute immunity. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 Buckley v. (1993) A prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity, for actions undertaken in some other function. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 1:18 (1997) are however, See Kalina v. (prosecutor is protected only by qualified immunity for attesting to the truth of facts contained in certification in support of arrest warrant, as in her provision of such testimony she functioned as a complaining witness rather than a prosecutorial advocate for the state) ; Burns, 500 U.S. at 492-96 (the provision of legal advice to police during pretrial investigation is protected only by qualified immunity); Buckley, not acting as an advocate, immunity, evidence) 409 U.S. at 276-78 (prosecutor is and is not entitled to absolute when holding a press conference or fabricating . See also Yarns v. County of Delaware, 15 465 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2006) (where the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit presents a detailed and nuanced analysis of when a prosecuting attorney is, and is not, entitled to absolute immunity for allegediy wrongful acts n connect:on with a prosecution, holding, for example, that a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for deliberately destroying highly exculpatory evidence, but is entitled to immunity for making the decision to deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence before and during trial, but not after the conclusion of adversarial proceedings) Here, it is not entirely clear whether Plaintiffs allegations against the prosecutor defendants fall within the scope of prosecutorial duties protected under prosecutorial immunity. Plaintiffs allege, among others, that the prosecutor defendants engaged in malicious prosecution and deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth Amendment right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure. While there is absolute immunity for certain actions on behalf of a prosecutor, it is not entirely clear whether all alleged actions are covered under the absolute immunity doctrine. 1402, 1409-17 (3d Cir. prosecutor s actions in complaint; and (3) (2) See Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1991) (absolute immunity covers a (1) creating and filing of an preparing of and applying for the seizure warrant; participating in ex parte hearing for the issuance of the seizure warrant) . Therefore, the Court will refuse to dismiss the claims against these prosecutor defendants on the grounds of 16 absolute immunity from a lawsuit for damages. discussed infra in Section IV. D., However, as the claims are dismissed against all cf the rrosecutor defendants on statute of limitations croun3s. Judicial Immunity B. Plaintiffs N. O ltalia, claims against defendants, J.S.C. the Honorable Arthur and the Honorable William Meehan, J.S.C., must be dismissed because these defendants are subject to judicial immunity from suit. As a general rule, a judicial officer in the performance of his or her duties has absolute immunity from suit. Mireless v. Waco, (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 1. Ed.2d 9 This . immunity extends to judges of courts of limited jurisdiction, such as New Jersey municipal court judges. Blackburn, 435, 39 F. 441-43 Supp.2d 479, (3d Cir. 2000). 484 (D.N.J. Further, Fiueroa v. 1999), [a] aff d, 208 F.3d judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, done maliciously, Sparkman, (1978) . 435 U.S. or was in excess of his authority. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L. was Stump v. Ed.2d 331 Judicial immunity serves an important function in that it furthers the public interest in judges who are at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences. Pierson v. 18 L. (1967) Ed.2d 288 . Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, Judicial immunity is an immunity from 17 CD C CD C) C) ft HCD HCC C CD )< C CD C) ft H0 ft HFl CC ft H Cl CD Hft -ci ¢ C C C) C) H- H) C Cl CD 0 ft Di Fl CD Cl C Di CC C 0 C) CD HC C) Di Fl Fl 0 C Di Fl CD C C Hft H) C) C) H- HC HDi ft Cl C i_i- 0 F-h C H0 C CC ft CD C C CD C) H Cl CD CC CD ¢ CD C) 0 ci CD Fl C 0 Cl CD Di -ci C) -ci ft ft HDi Cl Hft H- C Hci Hft C) F-h Fl 0 C) Di k< ft Fl H- Cl Hft Cl 0 ft kci CD C ft CD C) C H Cl CD Fl CD CC C Cl C) CD Li- Di C) Cl CD Fl CD - CD ci CD Fl C) Cl 0 - C CD CC C CC ft Di C) C HFl C C 0 ft Di Fl CD CD CD C ft - Fl ft Cl CD HC) 0 F-h ft H- C C) ft N) N) ft C) U) C) CD N Cl Hft CD ci U) 0 Fl Fl CD CC ft CD Fl U) CD CD ¢ Hft < C C C) C) H- CC C Cl C) CD Li- Di ft ft CD H- C C Cl CD Fl ft Di CD Fl CD Di C ft H0 C CC Di ft Cl ft CC CD Cl CD ft C 0 Fl CC C Di C ft H0 0 ft Hci CD C) C) Fl 0 C) CD Fl C) H- Di C C) Hft Cl C C Cl HC HDi ft H Cl C CC C) Cii Di ft N) Cl ¢ U) C C) C) U) C) C) C CD Fl 0 Di lU) Hf) ¢ ft CC Cl C) CC C CC Fl Li- Di CC Di Fl Di C ft CD Fl Cl C ft Cl CD HFl CD Hft Cl CD Fl C HCC Cl CD CC CD C) Fl Q C Di ft H0 C H- C) Cl H- CD Cl C CD Cl Di CC HC CC Cl Hci HCl C Di ft C H- Di C 0 ft Di ft H0 C ci Fl H- C) Cl ft Cl CD Di C Cl) CD Cl C) CD Fl Fl 0 Fl CC CC CD CD C C) C Cl Li- Di Cl -< C C Hft C) C) H- C Cl HC HDi ft Li- ft Cl CD C) C 0 Fl H ci ft Di L< C) 0 ft HC C Cl ft HC C) C) CC ft CD CD Cl Di Cl Cl CD ft * Cl I $ o C) a C) CC Cl 0 Cl CD Di ft Cl ft Fl CD Di CC 0 C C) 0 Fl CD CD Cl ft Di ft ft HCC CD C 0 0 C) ft Fl 0 ci CD Fl CC HDi ft C) C Di ft U) C) u-i t3 IC) IC Cl) ft ¢ CC C Hft 0 F-h ft CD Di Fl Hft Cl 0 C ft ft C) Di ft 0 C Di H- ft C) X CD C 0 C Fl ft ft Cl CD Cl Cl Fl CD Di Cl ft CC Hci CD C C) Di CD Hft CC C) C ft HC) Cl ft H- C) Cl Cl H Fl Cl CD Fl ft Cl CD U) C ft 0 C ft Fl H- ft Cl Di ft ft Di C ft ft Cl CD ft 0 C C) Hci CD C C 0 C CC HCl CD Fl Di ft H0 ci C Di CC C) Cl CD H- C ft 0 Q C Cl C) CD Li- Di ft Cl ft C C) H ci C). CD C) Fl H- H) C CC ft Hft Li- 0 ft C 0 CD CC Cl ¢ * C). C) CD C LI- Di HCC C Cl C) CD Cl HCC ft Li- ft Cl CD CD ft 0 Fl CD Cl HCC CC C CD ft Cl CD ft Cl Di ft ft Di C ft H Cl CD ¢ ¢ Hft < C C H- C) ft Cl CD H) Cl C CD ft Di C Di C ft H0 ft Cl CD Cl C) Hft C ft CD Cl HCC Di C) Fl CD CD ¢ (Ji CD C) ft - ft CD CD C) C) F--i C) ft C) ft Cl CD 0 ft C) () ci CD Fl C) C) ft Di HC ft HF-h ft C) U) ft ft ft CC) 0 C Fl ft CD Fl CD U) C ci ft C C H- C) C) H- ft HC HDi C Cl Li- Cl Di ci CD CC ft Fl C C) 0 Fl CD CD ci Di Cl Di H) C) ft HC) C C) Di CC C Cl C) CD Li- ft Cl CD r Fl CD ci 0 C) CD Cl - ft HCD CC C) C) Di C C Hft -ci C) C) H- ft Di ft Cl C) C C) CD C) CC C 0 ci CD CD < ft CD C CC H- ft Cl CD C) Cl Di CC HN CD Cl CD H) ft Cl CD Di ft CD 0 ft Cl H- C CC CD C) C CD C C CD CC C) Cl C 0 Hft CC C H- C CC C Fl H0 Li- HC ft C) * 0 C) CC D C) CD Fl C U) Di >C ¢ ci CD Fl C H- ci C) ft CD Di C) C CC) Di ft ft Di CC ---- C) C 0 ft H- CD C) ft C) ¢ - HFl C) C) Cl -- C) CD -Ci -I CD C) Cl * U) ft ft Di ft Cl) C) N) C) Cu C) CC CD CC ft Fl CD H- Di C) CD CC Cl Di 0 ft ft C CD C) Di CC CC CD CC CC Di ft CD C) C ft ft H- C) F-h Fl 0 ft CC C Li C 0 ft rt H- C CC where a judge engages in nonjudiciat acts, taken in the judge s judioial capacity. 208 5. 3d at 440. Id.; actions not see also Fioueroa, The second exception involves actions that, thouoh judicial in nature, all jurisdiction. at 440. i.e., are taken in the ccmoiete absence of Mireless, 502 U.s. at 11; Eigueroa, 208 P.3d Neither exception is applicable in the present case. here, Plaintiffs fail to assert any allegations aaainst Judge D Italia and Jddge Meehan that would show that they acted outside their judicial capacity. Plaintiffs allegations pertain to Judge D Italia s issuance of the search warrants sought by the Somerset County Prosecutor s Office and Judge Meehan s presiding over Gatson s state criminal trial, in which Gatson was convicted and sentenced on November 5, These allegations clearly 2004. involve only court related matters occurring during those state court proceedings. Consequently, Plaintiffs have failed to allege any actionable claim against Judge D Italia or Judge Meehan. There simply are no allegations to suggest that these judges acted beyond the scope of their judicial authority, the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Judge D Italia and Judge Meehan, liability, defendants, are absolutely immune from and this Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, C. Therefore, or in as against these defendants. Claims for Recovery of Property Are Now Barred It appears that Plaintiffs are attempting by this lawsuit to make an end run around the judgments entered against Gatson in 19 his state court actions for repievin, December 9, .flQ5 of New Jersey, Forrest, tne Law Division, Docket No. buperior under docket no. curt favor of defendant, against Wayne That matter was transferred CE New uersey, L-3181-07, in the Superior Court Somerset County, Som L 1733 05. on action for rerlevin with civil to the same property at issue here, respect to Gason filed a As stated a..ove, Law OjV1SIOO, ercer Oounty and summary judgment was granted in Wayne Forrest, on July 18, 2008, dismissing Gatson s Complaint for the return of the monies sought. Gatson had filed another replevin action in Bergen County, against Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli, BER-L-2987- 07, Docket No. which was dismissed with prejudice on November 16, 2007, because it was duplicative of the replevin action initially filed in Somerset County. Thus, challenge those judgments, to the extent that Gatson wishes to his recourse is properly made by direct appeal in state court. Indeed, Gatson did appeal from the order of summary judgment in the replevin action against Forrest, and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding that summary judgment was properly granted because defendants were entitled to prevail as a matter of law. 3082063 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Gatson v. Sept. 29, Forrest, 2009) . 2009 WL Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of Plaintiff s state court civil judgment, pursuant to the Rooker Feidman Doctrine. 6 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 16 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, (1983) 20 Under the Rooker-Feldrnan doctrine, lacks subject matter jurisdiction, effectively would rulin. (3d Cir. reverse Taliaferrc v. 2006) . a stare a district court if the relief requested court Darby Two. decision Zonino Rd., rlhis doctrine is a narrow one, to cases brought by state-court losers (1) (2) or void its 458 F.3d 151, 192 and applies only complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments (3) rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and (4) inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments. More simply stated, . Rooker-Peldman bars a federal proceeding when entertaining the federal claim would be the equivalent of an appellate review of the state judgment. No. 02-4247, at *4 2005 WL 2009904, (D.N.J. Allah v. Aug. Whitman, 17, 2005) (quoting POCUS v. Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, F.3d 834, 1996)) 840 (3d Cir. . Th:us, 75 a cause of action asserted in federal court that ultimately seeks to vacate the decision or reasoning of a state court is barred under Rooker-Peldman. Desi s Pizza, (3d Cir. Inc. V. City of Wilkes Barre, 321 F.3d 411, 419 20 2001) (Rooker-Feldman bars those claims that [are] inextricably intertwined with [the] state adjudication, meaning that federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong. ) This Court finds that the Rooker-Peldman doctrine applies here to bar this proceeding. First, Gatson admittedly lost in his New Jersey state court proceeding which he filed seeking the 21 return of the same monies now the subject of this litigation. this New Jersey state court adjudication against Gatson Second, occurred before Jatson filed this action in federal court. Finally, atson is essentially asking this Court to review and reect the state court adjudication acainst him. Plaintiffs Clearly then, purported claims against all of the defendants here with respect to monies and property seized during July 2001 pursuant to validly-obtained search warrants, are inextricably intertwined with the July 2008 decision of a New Jersey state court that entered summary judgment in lavor of Wayne Forrest and the Somerset County Prosecutor s Office arid against Gatson, because such claims amount to nothing more nor less than a prohibited appeal from the decision of the New Jersey state court. Therefore, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claims under the Rocker-Feldman doctrine, D. and the Complaint must be dismissed accordingly. Section 1983 Claims of Constitutional Violations Are Untimely Next, U.S.C. this Court also finds that Plaintiffs § 1983 and § 1985, alleging violations of their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Amendments, claims under 42 Fifth and Fourteenth are now time-barred. Plaintiffs exhibits show that $253, 310.00 in United States Currency was disbursed on August 24, 2001, to loannis Arvanitis and Martha Arvanitis, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:65 2, because there was no colorable dispute as to their ownership of the money. (Compl., Ex. N). 22 A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, based on a time-bar, where the 7ime alleged in the statement of a claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations. Construction Corp., omitted) . 570 E .2d 1168, 1174 Bethel v. (3d Cir. Jendoco 1978) (citation Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which may be waived by the defendant, to dismiss sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. it is appropriate § 1915(e) (2) a se civil rihts claim whose untimeliness is apparent from the face of the Complaint. See, e.g., Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. (2007) (if the allegations of a complaint, 199, 214-15 for example, show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim ); also Pino v. Ryan, under former § 1915(d) 49 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1995) in forma pauperis provisions, (holding, that sua sponte dismissal prior to service of an untimely claim is appropriate since such a claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory ); Hunterson v. (3d Cir.2007) ( district court may time-barred under 28 U.S.C. DiSabato, 2007 WL 1771315 sponte dismiss a claim as § 1915(A) (b) (1) where it is apparent from the complaint that the applicable limitations period has run ) (citing Jones v. Hall v. Cir. Geary County Bd. June 12, 1915(e)); 2001) Rounds v. Dm0 Bock, v. Ryan) (not precedential) ; of County Comm rs, (unpub..) Baker, 2001 WL 694082 (10th (aplying Pino to current § 141 F.3d 1170 23 (8th Cir. 1998) (unpub.); U] H0 C CC CC U] C CD U] C Di C) ¢ Di U] C H- < hi CD U] C H- U] U] 0 U] hi CD U] Di hi U] HC U] H0 C CC CC H- < hi 0 U] CC C U] hi hi CD U] Di U] CD U] CD HC U] U] CD hi Di U] U] CD CD U] U] 0 U] CC CC U] Di U] CD ¢ U] N) Di U] 0 U] HU] U] HC U] Di U] NC CD (C CC C Di C C hi CC 0 ¢ U] Di U] U] (C ¢ U] CD hi U] CD C 0 C U] H 0 C C CC U] H- Di U] CD hi CD U] U] C) - CD C 0 S H- U] (C CD C CD hi 5 ¢ U] H- N) CD CD 0 U] ¢ U] N) ¢ C) C) U] U] C) CD ND - U] CD] U] CC C N) CC C) U] U] CX) U] C) U] U] CD hi U] U] C) CD U] 0 hi HU] Di U] H0 C CC 5 U] H- 0 U] C CC 5 CD C U] Di H- U] CC U] U] hi H- HU] < C H- hi Di U] CD U] CD U] - C) N CC 0 C Di U] 0 C Di U] - Di C U] U] hi CD U] U] U] CD U] (3] C) U] U] N U] U] CC C 0 U] CC C CD U] U] CD C (C 0 ¢ U] ¢ U] < 0 C CD CC (C - ¢ hi Di IC tO CC U] Di C CD C CD CD U] U] U] HC Di U] U] CD U] Di U] U] U] NC U] CD hi C CD < 0 U] Di hi CD C U] Di CC Di C U] H0 L< HU] Di U] CC CC Di U] U] C) hi U] C C 0 C CC U] HU] C U] H0 hi 0 hi HU] U] U] CC HU] < H- C) hi U] C) U] - U] Di U] 0 C Di U] U] Di C CD U] CD CD U] Di C U] H0 C CC C) CD U] U] U] U] 0 Di U] N CD hi H0 U] U] C) C) CC XX) U] U] CC U] CC HC) C - U] U] CD HC CD S U] CD U] CD hi U] 0 U] Di CC U] Di U] CD U] 0 ) 0 CC U] C 0 C hi U] CD hi Di U] U] ¢ hi HCD H U] CD (C U] CD Di hi Di C U] U] C CD CC U] U] CD Di hi - U] CD hi CD C U] CD U] CC CD U] hi CD U] U] Di U] Di CC U] C hi LI- CD CC CC C CC 5 H- C H- C hi NC Di C U] H0 C C) U] Di C CC 0 C Di U] CD hi U] LI- HC U] CD hi CC 0 C Di U] U] 0 hi H0 C CC U] HU] Di S U] H 0 U] C U] CD Di U] CC U] CC - U] CD U] Di U] C) Di U] - U] Di U] C U] CC CC U] Di U] CD U] U] CD 0 U] CD C U] CC CD hi U] C 0 U] U] CD hi H0 CC C ¢ U] ¢ (C U] U] U] Li- C CC Di hi CD U] U] C) CC CC U] HU] U] C U] U] Di H- CC C U] 0 C CD hi -, HU] Di U] H0 5 U] ¢ ¢ N Di hi C HDi 0 I < CD Di hi C C U] U] < HU] CC 0 C Di C U] H0 C CC < C hi LI- HC C) U] CC - hi CC CD (C CD U] CD k< HC U] U] U] U] C C 0 hi U] ¢ U] U] Di U] U] < HU] 0 C) CD N) CD C U] CD CC CC ¢ U] C) CD C) ¢ Hhi U] C) U] N) U] U] U] 0 U] hi -< C LI C . U] C) CD U] C U] CD U] U] C Di ¢ (C U] C) CD U] ¢ - - Di C U] H0 C CC C hi < LI. U] U] U] CD hi U] C C CC S Di H- C U] C) Di H- H- C Hhi CD U] U] - N U] CD ¢ U] U] N) U] U] N) U] C C) N) hi H- C U] CC CD C) - U] N) CC U] N) C) (C U] U] CD U] (C CD C) 0 U] HC CD U] C) C) U] 0 hi C Di C U] H0 Di C N) U] ¢ ¢ U] N) U] C C U] CD C 5 5 C 0 U] CD C CC U] 5 CC) HU] C) C) Di C U] H0 C 0 U] C) U] Hhi CD U] U] - U] CC U] U] N) U] CC CD C U] CD U] Di C U] U] hi Di C U] C) U] CD U] CD Di U] U] U] CD C CD U] U] CD C U] Di C U] U] C U] C U] hi 0 0 U] U] CD 0 U] Di C C hi C Di U] 0 U] CC CD Di hi k< CC U] 0 U] CD ¢ < C U] hi 0 U] 0 Di U] CC Di C C 0 hi U] U] 0 C U] U] HC Di U] H0 C U] Di U] U] C U] U] U] CD Hhi U] CD U] <z C C hi Di 0 U] C U] 0 C U] U] CC C 0 C hi U] CC CD HCC CC C Di U] U] Di U] C U] CD H- HU] Di U] H0 CC U] U] (3] Di U] U] CD U] U] Di hi C HDi C) < HU] CC 0 C U] U] HC Di U] H0 C U] Di 0 U] CD U] (C U] C) U] C hi hi CD C U] C) U] 0 0 C Di, H- C U] H- U] U] U] Di C) C) U] C) Di (C U] CC U] U] U] U] C U] C) CD C) U] Di U] CD CC U] U] (C C HU] Cl) -C (C 0 U] C CC U] C) C CD Moreover, the accrual date of a § 1983 cause of action is a question of federal law that is cot resolved by reference to state law. ori.ginal) Waliace v. Katc, 549 U.S. at 358 (emphasis in A clai.m accrues as soon as the injured party knew or . had reason to know of the inSury that constitutes the basis of his action. 1982) . Muroski, See also Oshiver v. F.3d 1380, 1385 irrelevant. known, Sandutch v. (3d Sir. Rather, Levin, 1994). 6.84 E.2d 252, Fishbein, 254 Sedran & Berman, the question is whether the knowledge was knowable. Moreover, claim accrues upon knowledge of the actual injury, injury constitutes a legal wrong. (S.D. 38 Plaintiff s actual knowledge is or through reasonable diligence, 1996 WL 41621 3d Sir. Pa. Feb. 2, Fassnacht v. the not that the United States, 1996) (citing Oshiver, 38 F.3d at 1386). Here, the property at issue was seized on July 31, 2001. The property was held by the Somerset County Prosecutor s Office during the time that Gatson was tried on burglary and receiving stolen property charges. convicted on November 5, Catson admits that he was eventually 2004, but contends that the conviction on third degree receipt of stolen property, $75,000.00 or less, which covers should have allowed for the return of the $256,340.00 seized on July 31, 2001. Gatson filed motions in his state court criminal proceedings arguing that the search and seizure was unlawful under: the Fourth Amendment. latest, Thus, at the Plaintiffs plainly had reason to know by November 5, 25 2004, thac they may have had a claim for the return of their alleged property. However, action until April 8, Moreover, 2009, Plaintiffs did not file this federal almost four (4) years later. upon careful review of the Complaint and the many pages of exhibits attached thereto, there is nothing alleged to support an argument that Plaintiffs would be entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Any claim that Plaintiffs now allege concerning the violation of rheir Fourth Amendment rights accrued when the search warrant was executed on July 31, 2001. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 389 92. Plaintiffs allege no facts or extraordinary circumstances that would permit statutory or equitable tolling under either New Jersey or federal law. Nor do Plaintiffs plead ignorance of te New Jersey statutes set forth certain bases for statutory tolling. e.g., N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-21 (detailing tolling because of minority or insanity); N.J.S.A. § 2A 14 22 (detailing tolling because of nonresidency of persons liable) New Jersey law permits equitable tolling where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass, or where a plaintiff has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his rights, or where a plaintiff has timely asserted his rights mistakenly by either defective pleading or in the wrong forum. See Freeman v. State, 347 N.J. Super. 11, 31 (citations omitted), certif. denied, 172 N.J. 178 (2002) However, absent a showing of intentional inducement or trickery by a defendant, the doctrine of equitable tolling should be applied sparingly and only in the rare situation where it is demanded by sound legal principles as well as the interests of justice. I When state tolling rules contradict federal law or policy, in certain limited circumstances, federal courts can turn to federal tolling doctrine. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 370 (3d Cir. 2000) Under federal law, equitable tolling is appropriate in three general scenarios: (1) where a defendant actively misleads a plaintiff with respect to her cause of action; (2) where the . . 26 law or the fact of his confinements (neither excuse being sufficient to relax the statute of limitations bar in this instance) as the basis for delay in bringing suit, In fact, Plaintiffs are completely silent wLth resect to the fact that their Complaint has been submitted out of time. Plaintiffs have has not offered any explanation for their lack of diligence in pursuing this claim long after it had expired. This omission strongly militates against equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Court finds that the § 1983 and 1985 claims alleging violations of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, are time-barred and must be dismissed with prejudice. plaintiff has been prevented from asserting her claim as a result of other extraordinary circumstances; or (3) where the plaintiff asserts her claims in a timely manner but has done so in the wrong forum. Id. n.9. Plaintiffs claim of a Fifth Amendment violation more properly refers to the Fourteenth Amendment in that it raises a denial of due process with respect to the property allegedly seized unlawfully by state government officials rather than federal officers. Even if the claims were not time barred, this Court would find that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under § 1983 for a Fourth Amendment violation. Retention of seized property may violate the Fourth Amendment if the government is unable to establish probable cause for the initial seizure. See Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 969 (2003) However, in this case, the legality of the initial seizure is not in issue as it was based on a validly obtained search warrant, an issue raised by Gatson and determined by the state court in Gatson s direct appeal from his conviction on two counts of receiving stolen property. See State v. Gatson, . 27 E. RICO Claims Plaintiffs also invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, broadly alleging a claim that defendants acted in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ( RICO ). See 18 U.s.C. § 1962(c). Even under the most liberal reading of the Complaint, Plaintiffs fail to identify an enterprise, or any particular acts of alleged racketeering necessary to support a civil RICO claim. Nor do Plaintiffs allege any pattern of racketeering activity. The allegations are based solely on the seizure of property pursuant to a lawfully obtained search warrant. Thus, the Complaint is completely devoid of any particularized factual allegations necessary to support the statutory requirements of a RICO claim. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs do not allege the necessary factual basis to 2007 WI 3196298 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 1, 2007). Likewise, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Plaintiffs had an adequate post-deprivation of property remedy available to them, namely, a replevin action, which Gatson had filed, but was ultimately unsuccessful. It is further noted, that on August 8, 2008, the Somerset County Prosecutor s Office wrote to Gatson informing him that arrangements could be made by him or someone on his behalf to take custody of the Bayliner boat and $8,938.00 seized during their investigation of Gatson. It is not clear from the Complaint whether Plaintiffs made such arrangements. Of course, the $253,310.00 was returned to the Arvanitises from whom the money was taken during a burglary after it was determined that there was no dispute that the money belonged to them. Finally, Plaintiffs asserts a bald claim of an Eighth Amendment violation. However, there appears to be no basis for an Eighth Amendment violation because Plaintiffs were not assessed any storage costs or excessive fines with respect to the property seized. 28 raise a viable claim under the RICO statute, be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. F. the Complaint will § 1915A(b) (1) Remaining State Law Claims Finally, to the extent that Plaintiffs may be alleging claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and other tort actions, these claims are state common law tort claims, over which this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, because there are no claims pending in this action over which 28 U.S.C. this Court has original jurisdiction. § 1367 (c) (3). V. Therefore, CONCLUSION for the reasons set forth above, will be dismissed with prejudice, to all defendants, the Complaint in its entirety, with respect for failure to state a claim at this time, and because it seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief, (iii) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. and 1915A(b) (1) appointment of counsel moot. (2) . Plaintiffs (docket entry nos. applications for 2 and 3) are denied as An appropriate order follows. / Dated: and §B 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii), SANLEY R. CHESLER United States District Judge / 29

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.