SLAUGHTER v. PERRY et al, No. 2:2012cv02577 - Document 3 (D.N.J. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 10/12/12. (jd, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CHARLES S. SLAUGHTER, Civil Action No. 12-2577 (WJM) Plaintiff, : V. DALE K. PERRY, OPINION et al., Defendants. APPEARANCES: Plaintiff pQ Charles S. Slaughter 786227/491769 8 Production Way 8L Avenel, New Jersey 07001 MARTINI, District Judge Plaintiff Charles S. Slaughter, a prisoner confined at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel, 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), grant Plaintiff s application to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) the Court will forma pauperis 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 malicious, granted, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. I. BACKGROUND The following factual allegations are taken from Plaintiff s Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of this review. Plaintiff states that his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because he did not receive documents pursuant to his request for materials under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Perry, as an OPRA Custodian, denied Plaintiff s request for documents. Plaintiff states that in June of 2010, the Superior Court, Appellate Division reversed a decision of the Government Records Council (GRC) to deny Plaintiff s OPRA request. on November 19, 2011, Plaintiff then, resubmitted his OPRA request, ultimately sent to Defendant Perry. which was That request was denied. Plaintiff filed a motion in state court on December 28, 2011 to challenge the denial of his most recent OPRA request and to compel the release of the requested documents. denied on February 7, 2012. That motion was Thereafter Plaintiff appealed the The Court notes that while the decision referred to by Plaintiff, Slaughter v. Government Records Council, 413 N.J. Super 544, 997 A.2d 235 (N.J.Super.A.D. June 4, 2010), resulted in a reversal, the effectiveness of the decision was delayed until November 5, 2010. 2 denial of the motion; appeal on April 3, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied the 2012. Plaintiff now brings this lawsuit against Defendants Dale K. Perry, OPRA Custodian, Stuart Rabner, Jose L. Chief Justice, N.J.S.C. in the amount of $2,250,000.00, Additionally, Fuentes, P.J.A.D., and Plaintiff seeks damages plus court costs and filing fees. Plaintiff seeks a court order to release the requested documents. II. A. Standards for a STANDARD OF REVIEW Sponte Dismissal The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 801 810, 110 Stat. 1321 66 to 1321 77 Pub. L. No. (April 26, 104-134, 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. to identify cognizable claims and to that is frivolous, malicious, relief may be granted, § 1915A(b) . sponte dismiss any claim fails to state a claim upon which or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. The Court is required See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B); This action is subject to screening for dismissal under both 28 U.S.C. . sponte § 1915(e) (2) (B) 1915A because Plaintiff is proceeding as an indigent and is a prisoner. 3 and In determining the sufficiency of a p se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, (following Estelle v. Gamble, United States v. 969 F.2d 39, Day, 551 U.S. 429 U.S. 97, 42 89, 106 (3d Cir. 93 94 (2007) (1976)); also 1992) The supreme Court refined the standard for summary dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim in Ashcroft v. 556 U.S. 662 The Court examined Rule 8(a) (2) (2009). Iqbal, 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. 8(a) (2). 550 U.S. offers Fed. that, Civ. Citing its opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 544 (2007) for the proposition that labels and conclusions or (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), to prevent a summary dismissal, allege sufficient factual matter facially plausible. [aj P. Twombly, pleading that a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do, 1949 R. Iqbal, 129 5. Ct. at the Supreme Court held a civil complaint must now to show that the claim is This then allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. (3d Cir. Fowler v. 2009) (citing Iqbal, UPMC Shadyside, 129 S. Ct. 578 F.3d 203, 210 at 1948) The Supreme Court s ruling in Iqbal emphasizes that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the allegations of his complaint 4 are plausible. Twombly, See Iqbal, 505 U.S. 643 F.3d 77, 84 at 555, (3d Cir. 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50. & n.3; Warren Gen. 2011). Hosp. 211 such an entitlement with its facts. (citing Phillips v. (3d Cir. B. Amgen Inc., V. A complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff s entitlement to relief. show also County of Allegheny, A complaint has to Fowler, 578 F.3d at 515 F.3d 224, 234 35 2008)). 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, allege, first, a plaintiff must 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. (1988) 1994) ; ; Piecknick v. Malleus v. See West v. Pennsylvania, George, 487 U.S. 36 F.3d 1250, 641 F.3d 560, 5 Atkins, 563 1255 56 (3d Cir. 42, 48 (3d Cir. 2011) III. A. DISCUSSION Dismissal as against Defendants Fuentes and Rabner Defendants Hudson County Superior Court Judge Jose L. Fuentes and New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner should be dismissed from this matter as they are judicial officers who are immune from suit under these circumstances. Generally, a judicial officer in the performance of his or her duties has absolute immunity from suit. Mireles v. U.S. (1991). 9, 12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 Waco, 502 Judicial immunity is absolute and cannot be overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice. at 11. Rather, the only two exceptions to judicial immunity are for non-judicial actions or for a judicial action taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. Whether an act by a judge is nature of the act itself, judicial one relate[s) to the i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of parties. v. 349, Sparkman, (1978). 435 U.S. Here, 362, 98 S.Ct. 1099, Stump 55 L.Ed.2d 331 the actions of Defendant Fuentes and Rabner complained of by Plaintiff are judicial in nature and as such protected by judicial immunity. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks review of judicial decisions already rendered and attempts to use this Complaint as an attempt for reconsideration or further appeal of the state court judgments, this Court lacks subject matter 6 jurisdiction to entertain such requests. The Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine recognizes that a litigant who was unsuccessful in a state court proceeding cannot seek review of those proceedings by a federal district court. Middlebrook at Monmouth v. F. App x 284, 2011). 285 (3d Cir. Liban, 419 The doctrine thus bars this Court from reviewing or overturning the prior rulings in state court. B. Dismissal as against Defendant Perry As to Defendant Perry, Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted here. As noted above, entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in order to be a plaintiff must allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law. Here, Defendant Perry s actions to deny Plaintiff s OPRA request cannot be shown to have violated any constitutional standards. Plaintiff s allegations do not trigger any federal rights and as such the complaint must be dismissed. The 2 263 U.S. Columbia 1303, 75 doctrine is derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and District of Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) 7 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. An appropriate order follows. Unite Dated: 8 J. MART INI ates District Judge
]]>
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.
