-MF BAKER v. LEWIS et al, No. 2:2010cv03438 - Document 9 (D.N.J. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 10/18/2010. (nr, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-MF BAKER v. LEWIS et al Doc. 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY _______________________________ : : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : SANDRA S. LEWIS, et al., : : Defendants. : _______________________________: ABDULALI BAKER, Civil Action 10-3438 (WJM) O P I N I O N William J. Martini, District Judge: Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee confined at Union County Jail, Elizabeth, 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), and will order the Clerk to file the Complaint. At this time, the Court must review the Complaint 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. Page -1- Dockets.Justia.com I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff names his prosecutor, Sandra S. Lewis, and Detective Athanasio Mikros as Defendants in this matter.1 No. 1. that The gist of Plaintiff s claims against these Defendants is they, proceedings. II. See Docket Entry allegedly, lied during Plaintiff s grand jury See id. at 4-5. STANDARD OF REVIEW In determining the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe the facts stated in the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). Indeed, it is long established that a court should accept as true all of the [factual] allegations in the complaint and 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). However, while a court will accept well-pled allegations as true, it will not accept bald 1 For the reasons not entirely clear to this Court, the Clerk also designated Union County Prosecutor Office and Elizabeth Police Department as Defendants in this matter, although these entities are not mentioned in Plaintiff s pleadings. However, this discrepancy is of no importance in this matter, since neither the Prosecutor s Office nor the Police Department is an entity cognizable as person for the purposes of a § 1983 suit. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); Grabow v. Southern State Correctional Facility, 726 F. Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J. 1989); see also Marsden v. Federal BOP, 856 F. Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Page -2- assertions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences, or sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. See id. Addressing the clarifications as to the litigant's pleading requirement stated in the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provided the courts in this Circuit with detailed and careful guidance as to what kind of allegations qualify as pleadings sufficient to pass muster under the Rule 8 standard. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230-34 (3d Cir. 2008). Specifically, the Court of Appeals observed as follows: While a complaint . . . does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation [is] to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' [by stating] more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . . ." Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65 . . . Rule 8 requires a 'showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief." Id. at 1965 n.3. . . . [T]he threshold requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) [is] that the 'plain statement [must] possess enough heft to 'sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 1966. [Hence] factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Id. at 1965 & n.3. . . . [Indeed, it is not] sufficient to allege mere elements of a cause of action; instead a complaint must allege facts suggestive of the proscribed conduct." Id. Id. at 230-34 (original brackets removed). This pleading standard was further refined by the United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 Page -3- (2009), where the Court observed: [In any civil action, t]he pleading standard . . . demands more than an unadorned [ ]the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me[ ] accusation. [Twombly, 550 U.S.] at 555 . . . . A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. [Id.] at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement." Id. at 557. . . . A claim has facial plausibility [only] when the plaintiff pleads factual content . . . . Id. at 556. [Moreover,] the plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. [Indeed, even w]here a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, [the so-alleging complaint still] stops short of [showing] plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.' Id. at 557 (brackets omitted). [A fortiori,] the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions [or to t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements [,i.e., by] legal conclusion[s] couched as a factual allegation [e.g.,] the plaintiffs' assertion of an unlawful agreement [or] that [defendants] adopted a policy 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. . . . . [W]e do not reject these bald allegations on the ground that they are unrealistic or nonsensical. . . . It is the conclusory nature of [these] allegations, rather than their extravagantly fanciful nature, that disentitles them to the presumption of truth. . . . [Finally,] the question [of sufficiency of] pleadings does not turn . . . the discovery process. Twombly, 550 U.S.] at 559 . . . . [The plaintiff] is not entitled to discovery [where the complaint alleges any of the elements] generally," [i.e., as] a conclusory allegation [since] Rule 8 does not [allow] pleading the bare elements of [the] cause of action [and] affix[ing] the label general allegation" [in hope to develop facts through discovery]. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-54. Page -4- III. SECTION 1983 ACTIONS 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: 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56 (3d Cir. 1994). IV. DISCUSSION Here, Plaintiff s claims against the detective and the prosecutor are facially barred by absolute immunity of these Defendants. Witnesses, including police witnesses, are absolutely immune from civil damages based upon their testimony. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 341-46 (1983). In addition, a state prosecuting attorney who act[s] within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal Page -5- prosecution is not amenable to suit under § 1983. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 410 (1976). Thus, a Imbler v. prosecutor's appearance in court as an advocate of the state s position, or the prosecutor s presentation of evidence at a court hearing, including a grand jury hearing, is protected by absolute immunity. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 492 (1991). Moreover, acts undertaken by a the prosecutor in preparing for initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the protections of absolute immunity. (1993). Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 The acts complained of here are acts undertaken in the presentation of evidence to a grand jury; these acts clearly fall within the scope of the prosecutor s duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution; thus, she is immune from any liability for damages as a result of those actions. Therefore, Plaintiff s claims against both Defendants shall be dismissed. V. AMENDMENT APPEARS FUTILE If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason -- such as undue delay, bad faith . . . , repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing Page -6- party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. -- the leave sought should, as the rules require, be freely given . Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Heyl & Patterson Int'l, Inc. v. F.D. Rich Housing of the Virgin Islands, 663 F.2d 419, 425 (3d Cir. 1981). Here, Plaintiff s claims raise challenges facially barred by Defendants absolute immunity. Therefore, these claims cannot be defined as a proper subject of relief, and grant of leave to amend these claims appears futile: indeed, no amendment of Plaintiff s pleadings can change the fact that the detective acted as a witness at Plaintiff s grand jury proceedings, same as no amendment can change the fact that the prosecutor made statements during Plaintiff s grand jury proceedings while acting within the scope of her prosecutorial capacity. Therefore, Plaintiff s claims will be dismissed with prejudice. VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff's application to file the Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee and will dismiss the Complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion. s/William J. Martini WILLIAM J. MARTINI, United States District Judge Dated: 10/18/10 Page -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.
