-MAS SHERMAN v. COUNTY OF HUDSON et al, No. 2:2010cv02081 - Document 7 (D.N.J. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/19/2010. (ld, )

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Civil Action Nc. 10 2081 Painiifr, (MAS MEMORANDUM OPINION COUNTY OF HUDSON, et al,, Defendants. APPEARANCES: Plaintiff se Canton Sherman 215019 Hudson County Correctional Center 35 Hackensack Avenue Kearny, NJ 07032 District Judge CHESLER, Plaintiff Carlton Sherman, a prisoner confined at Hudson County Correctional Center in Kearny, New Jersey, seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. alleging violations of his constitutional rights. § 1983, Based on his affidavit of indigence and the absence of three qualifying dismissals within 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), the Court will rant I s aoiioanion no croceed in forma paupenis our suant no 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and order the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint. At this time, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or Dockets.Justia.com CARLTON SHERMAN, NJ C) C) C) H H- - it 0 C) it C) CD C) NJ HC) CD C) it CD C) HZ HC) C) it CD C) C) 0 NJ H- CD Hit C) H- C) U- C) CD H C) C) C) CD C) C) < HC) C) CD ( NJ C) C) C) CD C) 0 C) HZ -J- C) CD C) C) cC N) C) C/) C) it - cc H C) it C) 0 C) HZ C) HC) C) CD C) C) 0 cC 0 NJ ¢ Cl) it 0 NJ NJ 0 cC HC) C) it C) CD 0 C) NJ HZ 0 it it CD C) Cl) it Hit it CD C/) C) it C) H- CD C) NJ - H C) C) NJ CD H- HH C) C) C) Cl) it CD it H- C) CD C) CD Cc - CD (Ji * N) it CD C) H- NJ NJ C) 0 CD NJ NJ CD C) CD it H0 C) H C) 0 C) C) NJ C) Cl) 0 C) -< NJ * N) NJ C) 0 C) it CD C) C) it it H- C) * N) NJ NJ N) CD C) C) C) HZ C) CD C) it Cl) CD CD C) C) NJ C) C) it C) C) 0 Cl -< it H C) C) C) H- < C) C) CD <4 H0 NJ CD it CD it 0 0 C) Z CD Cl) C) CD C) C) it C) CD C) H HC) it C) HCD it C) CD C) C) C) H CD CD C) C) <4 0 H- H- CD H- CD Hit C) HC) H C) C) C) C) Cl) C) CD C) CD it HC) C) C) CD HCl) CD it C) 0 -< C) NJ CD C) C) 0 C) C) H HC) Cl) CD HN C) C) CD C) it H0 C) H C) 0 HNJ C) it C) CD C) 0 it C) C) C) CD it C) CD it H0 C) CD it C) CD 0 it CD C) C) CD Cl) it ¢ C) C) H- C) CD ¢ Cl) HC) NJ CD C) it Cl) - it 0 C) it C) 0 C) Cl) it Hit C) it H0 C) CD NJ CD it it CD C) it it 0 CD C) it HC) C) CD Cl) CD C) C) 0 0 C) C)) cC CD C) <4 H- CD C). C) C) it C) CD it CD C) C). C) C) H- C) CD H- C) C) CD CD C) it C) 0 CD C) it C) HCD H CD C) C) C) C) C) NJ CD CD C) 0 C) NJ CD cC it 0 NJ C) - C) C) it / HZ C) it 0 0 C) NJ CD C) HC) C) C) C) CD CD C) C) 0 it it H- C) CD C) it C) C) CD it CD it C) CD it - CD C) C) CD H it C) 0 C) C) it C) NJ C) -< C) C) 0 C) C) NJ CD C) CD it CD C) C) CD N H CD H- C) C) Cl) CD CD C) C) C) NJ CD E it C) NJ - HC) CD C) C) CD <4 CD 0 it H HC) r C) 0 it C) H0 C) CD it it C) CD C) C) CD it C) CD it 0 NJ CD C) C) C) H- C) it 0 C) it it C) it H0 C) CD NJ NJ CD C) it HC) C) CD C) it HCD H C) CD it NJ HCl) it HC) C) C) CD C) C) it 0 CD C) it HC) C) C) Cl) H- C) CD C) CD it CD CD C) C) CD C) it C) CD it NJ CD C) CD H NJ CD C) NJ CD HC) it Hit it NJ CD HC) it C) C) H- C) 0 CD CD NJ C) 0 C 0 C) C) HC) C) C) CD CD C) it C) Cl) CD C) it CD C) it C) 0 C) Cl) it C) C) Cl) C) 0 HNJ C) it HC) C) CD it it CD it C) CD C) C) NJ C) H 0 C) HZ C) C) 0 C) CD C) it HC) CD NJ H4 CD C) CD C) it H- CD NJ C) C) 0 CD C) it HC) H it CD C) NJ H- H0 C) H it CD NJ NJ C!) C) CD C) CD NJ H- C) C) NJ C) CD CD NJ NJ CD C) CD it H0 C) H it C) CD NJ it CD C) 0 it CD HC) H C) U Cl H4 it cC C) C) it CD C) C) C) CD it CD C) CD C) it C) 0 CD C) C) CD < C) CD NJ HCD it C) C) C) H- cC 0 C) C) C) C) CD NJ HCD it L< C) C) C) CD H it CD it CD C) it HNJ C) C) CD CD it. C) it 0 C) Cl) () C) CD NJ HC) H NJ CD H- C) 0 C) CD it CD H CD CD Cl) it H- H CD CD C) C) C) it C) 0 CD C) C) H C) it C) 0 0 C) C) - CD C) CD C) C) ) C) it. CD H- C) H- CD NJ C) C) 0 C) H - it it C) it H- H- CD NJ C) C) CD HCl) 11. STANDARDS FOR A SNA SP1\TE DiSNISSAL This Court must dismiss, at the earliest practicab.le time, certain in forma pauperis and prisoner actions that are fr rclc.s, arc_s, fa_ to state a ola]c1, ef irD a uef aat 5.5.5. § 19i5:e)(2) § 19l5A ro s or see c etar e :ror or reof in forma nauceris actions); See 28 23 U.S.C. (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. § l997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions) In determining the sufficiency of a nro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. States v. Haines v. Day, Kerner, 969 P.2d 39, 42 404 U.S. (3d Cir. 519, 520-21 1992) (1972); United 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. Merion School Dist., 1997). 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. Lower A complaint is frivolous if it slacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 325 (189) former § Neitzke v. Williams, (interpreting the predecessor of § 1915(e) (2), 1915 (d) ) . 319, the The standard for evaluating whether a complaint is frivolous is an objective one. States, 490 U.S. 67 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (3d Cir. 1995) Deutsch v. United In addition, any complaint, must comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) (2) requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint must plead facts sufficient at least to suggest a basis for liability. 218, 236 n.12 (3d Cir.... the statement need only the v. .., 2004). Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F,3d Specific facts are not necessary; give the defendant fair notice of what claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Erickson Pardus, 127 S.Ct, 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted) While a complaint does not need 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, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation ) Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... Bell Atlantic Corp. (citations omitted) v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 65 (2007) The Supreme Court has demonstrated the application of these general standards to a Sherman Act conspiracy claim. In applying these general standards to a § 1 [conspi racy] claim, we hold that stating such a cam requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made. Asking for plausible grounds to infer an agreement does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of 4 illegal agreement. And, of course, a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely. ... It makes sense to say, therefore, that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice. Without more, parallel conduct does not suggest conspiracy, and a conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point does not supply facts adequate to show illegality. Hence, when allegations of parallel conduct are set out in order to make a § 1 claim, they must be placed in a context that raises a suggestion of a preceding agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as well be independent action. The need at the pleading stage for allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) agreement reflects the threshold requirement of Rule 8(a) (2) that the plain statement possess enough heft to sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief. A statement of parallel conduct, even conduct consciously undertaken, needs some setting suggesting the agreement necessary to make out a § 1 claim; without that further circumstance pointing toward a meeting of the minds, an account of a defendant s commercial efforts stays in neutral territory. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965 66 (citations and footnotes omitted). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held, in the context of a § 1983 civil rights action, that the Twombly pleading standard applies outside the § 1 antitrust context in which it was decided. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) ( we decline at this point to read Twoniblv so narrowly as to limit its holding on plausibility to the antitrust context ). Context matters in notice pleading. Fair notice under Rule 8(a) (2) depends on the type of case some complaints will require at least some factual allegations to make out a showing that the pleader is -- 5 entitled to relief, in order to aive the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Indeed, taking Twombly and the Court s contemporaneous opinion in Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007), together, we understand the Court to instruct that a situation may arise where, at some point, the factual detail in a complaint is so undeveloned that it does not provide a defendant the type of notice of claim which is contemplated by Rule 8. Put another way, ir light of lwo1y, Rule 8 a) çZ) requires a showing rather than a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief. We caution that without some factual allegation in the complaint, a claimant cannot satisfy the requirement that he or she provide not only fair notice, but also the grounds on which the claim rests. ¢.. Phillips, 515 P.3d at 232 More recently, (citations omitted). the Supreme Court has emphasized that, assessing the sufficiency of y civil complaint, distinguish factual contentions part of the defendant that, -- Ashcroft v. Igbal, would satisfy one or more and [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, statements. a court must which allege behavior on the if true, elements of the claim asserted when supported by mere conciusory 129 S.Ct, 1937, 1949 (2009). Although the Court must assume the veracity of the facts asserted in the complaint, it is not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Id. at 1950. Thus, a court considerino a motion to dismiss can choose to becin by identifying pleadings that, conclusions, because they are no more than are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Therefore, after Igbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-part analysis. Id. First, ihe factual and lecal elements of a claim should ce separated. Inc District uour must accept au or the complaint s well pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. 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 plaintiff s entitlement to relief. A complaint has to show such an entitlement with its facts. See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234 35. As the Supreme Court instructed in Iqbal, [w]here 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. This plausibility determination will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 11 (3d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) Where a complaint can be remedied by an amendment, a district court may not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, must permit the amendment. (1992); Cir. v. Grayson v. 2002) Fauver, Denton v. Hernandez, Mayview State Hospital, (dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 213 F.3d 113, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. County Police Dept., 116-17 (3d Cir. § l997e(c) (1)); 91 F.3d 451, III. 293 F.3d 103, 25, 108 § 1915(e) (2)); 2000) (dismissal Urrutia v. 453 504 U.S. (3d Dir. Harrisburg 1996). SECTION 198.3 ACT1CNS A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights. Section 1983 provides in relevant part: but 34 (3d Shane Di Di CD Cl H- S HDi Cl Cl CD CD Di it 5 Cl Di H Cl Di H H ¢ it it it it CD H Di CD Di H çt Hit CD Cl C) XC H Di C) Di Di CD Cl CD it it 0 C) 0 H it Di HH HH Cl CD H it Di 5 Di it Di it CD CD Di 0 H HI C) 0 H C) H CD H CD H < Di H CD Di Di Di CD H it H0 H Di H Di H 0 it HDi Cl H Di HH it 5 C) 0 Di HH it H- Cl Di H Cl Cl H H- C) H CD CD H Cl O H o Di Di HDi H Di CD C) Cl H ¢ it Dl C) it Di Di H H CD Cl CD Cl it Di Hi Cl Di H it HC) CD H Di H H - HH H- XC Hçt Cl Di it Di H Cl <1 CD C) it C) Di Cl it it HC) HCD H it Di C) it CD Di H 0 CD Cl HDi - H Di HH it S Cl CC) 0 Di Cl Di H Di CD CD H Hi < Di Cl H Di HH it Hit it H H ¢ 0 H C) H CD Di H0 H Di C) XC CD Cl it Cl CD it 0 H it 1 CD CD Di Di Di C) C) CD Cl it CD Cl Cl CD 5 Di -< HC) Cl 0 it 0 H it 0 it 0 Di CD Di Cl CD Cl Cl H Di HH it Di C) it Di H 0 0 it it CD H Di it Hit it H Di H- H Cl Cl CD H CD ¢ XC HCD < Cl Di it H0 H Di hI CD LC) H- Di H H CD Cl Di H Di H H CD HH Hit it Cl CD CD Di C) it CD Di H it Di H H Di Cl CD S Cl Di Di Cl H Di H it Hit it Cl CD it Cl CD H HH CD S CD H it Cl CD Di it it 0 CD H CC) it Cl CD HH it Di H 5 Cl C) 0 Di Cl H Di HH it Hit it 0 it C) Hi H Di CD it h-h HC) HCD it Cl CD Di Di Di CD Di Di H 0 (ii it Hi Ci) H Cl ¢ < H C) HH H Cl S Cxl Cx) H 0 09 H H H 09 C) H Cl ¢ rj H ix) - Di H HDi <1 H CD H H Di it) ¢ <1 H HC) Cl HCD 1) CX) Cx) CC) H 0) X) H ¢ (I) CC) -J CX) - HH Di it ¢ CD Di it ¢ H Di XC Di it Di it CD it 0 H 0 H o C) H CD H Cl CD Di C) it HH Cl Cl CD H Di 0 H Di Cl < C) Di CD Di CD Cl 0 H Hit it CD Cl 5 5 C) 0 Di Di < Di it HC) H Cl CD Cl H H- Di H H CD xQ CD Cl Di CD C) CD H CD Cl H HCl Cl it Di 0 it H0 H Di it H0 H < it Cl CD it H H Di it - Di H H CD Cl CD it Cl Cl Hi - it Cl CD it Cl Di it CD Cl Di CD C) 0 H - Di H Cl Di it CD Di it Cl) Cl C) H Hit CD it Cl CD it 0 Di XC H Di 0 H C) 0 H Di it Hit CD it H0 H 5 CD Di it it Hit it HH Di Cl H Di H CD H co Cl CD H Cl CD H HCD it H H CD it 0 H 5 H- Di C) H Di Di it Di it CD o it H Cl CD Di CD Cl Di ClDiCDC) CD H ClHi OH itit H)XCitit H-CDDi itClit Cl CD HH DiCDDiHCD H OH) HDiDiit Di0 CDXCHCDQn itH Di HH itOOC) Di H-itDiH5H DiClitClit CDCDH-CDCDC) C) ¢ HCD DiDi0it ¢ itHDiCl CDH HCD0Di Di H-DiDiClHCDCDH DiDiL< HClCDH HC)H-0 Di CDCDCD<lititClDi Cl HDiCOCDit CDitCDitCD Di H-OClH-HCl it it 0 CDOCD H)itClHCl itit CDDi ClHi CD CD 0HCDDi C) ititDiClH H Cl Cl 0 -< ClHClS H- H Di it CD Di it it0Di Cl CDH-CD 0HXC CDC)Cl0H DiOHHLJHCl H Di HCDH-CD CD Hit OitC) H CD DiH-H1CDitC) Cit H- C) H it Di 0 0 C ) HH-HHH< QL HClCDH Q) ClCDDiCl HH-H CDHititLJ-C)CDHH HCDHDiCDH-HDi Cl it - H it H H Cl Cl CD H-H-H-C)CD HH-itClDiNitCDH 0HH-HClCD0 Di C) 0H-H-HH 0 L<HH CDDiH<C) CDH H-itO CD DiHH-itiQxC Cl H-DiHCDCI) CDCl HC)CliCDH it HO Cl 0 4L For te reasons et fct ac e, dismissed witnouL preuQice, §5 1915(e) (2) (B) (i.i) claim. However, te Corr_a be pursuant to 28 tj..O. and 19l.5A(b) (1), for failure to state a because i.t is conceivable that Plaintiff may be able to supplement his pleading with facts sufficient to overcome the deficiencies of his Complaint, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.- An appropriate order follows. anley R. Chesler United States District Judge Dated: The Court notes that [g]enerally, an order which dismisses a complaint without prejudice is neither final nor appealable because the deficiency may be corrected by the plaintiff without affecting the cause of action. The dispositive inquiry is whether the district court s order finally resolved the case. Martin v. Brown, 63 F.3d 1252, 1257 58 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 (3d Cir. 1976)) (other citations omitted). In this case, if Plaintiff can correct the deficiencies of his Complaint, he may file a motion to re open these claims in accordance with the court rules. . . . Plaintiff should note that when an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer performs any function in the case and cannot be iti1ed to cure defects in the amended conplaint1 , unless the relevant cordon is specifically iccorocrated in the new Hcp1aicti 6 Wright, Hilier Face, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (footnotes omitted) An amended complaint may adopt some or all of the allegations in the original complaint, but the identification of the particular allegations to be adopted must be clear and explicit. To avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an amended complaint th.at is complete in itself. . . 1

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.