BROOKS v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al, No. 2:2018cv00647 - Document 8 (D.N.J. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 5/31/2018. (ld, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NORRIS BROOKS, Civil Action No. 18-0647 (CCC) v. Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURiTY, et al., Defendants. This matter has come before the Court on a civil rights Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff Norris Brooks pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown NamedAgents of Fed. Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 38$ (1971), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff is proceeding informa pauperis, (see ECF No. 5), the Court must screen the Complaint to determine whether the case shall be dismissed because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Having completed this screening, for the reasons stated below, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Complaint names the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Essex County Correctional Facility (“ECCF”) as defendants. However, DHS cannot be sued under Bivens due to sovereign immunity. See Corr. Set-vs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001) (finding that a plaintiffs only remedy in a Bivens action “lies against [an] individual”); Jaffee v. United States, 592 F.2d 712, 717 (3d Cir. 1979) (finding that Bivens does not authorize suits against the government itself); DippotIto v. United States, No. 13-0175, 2015 WL 9308238, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2015) (finding that federal agencies are not amendable to suit under Bivens). Likewise ECCF is not a “person” amendable to suit under § 1983. Boomer v. Lewis, 541 F. App’x 186, 192 (3d Cir. 2013) (“PCCF, [a correctional facility,J to the extent Boomer was suing the facility, is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983”) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71(1989), fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)); Stathum v. Nadrowski, No. 15-5502, 2016 WL 7411428, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2016); Tremper v. Correct Care Solutions, No. 13-3626, 2014 WL 320338, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2014); Antoine v. Betleville Muti. Ct., No. 10-1212, 2010 WL 2989991, at *3 (D.N.J. July 27, 2010). Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and is dismissed with prejudice.’ — C— Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J. 1 The Court cautions Plaintiff that repeated attempts to raise meritless claims while proceeding in forma pauperis may be construed as an abuse of process, and may result in severe restrictions to Plaintiff’s ability to proceed informa pauperis in the future. See Aruanno v. Davis, 679 F. App’x 213 (3d Cir. 2017) (affirming the district court’s adoption of the three-strike rule to non-prisoner pro se plaintiff under extraordinary circumstances). 2
]]>
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.
