BROOKS v. UNION TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT TAC UNIT, No. 2:2018cv01149 - Document 10 (D.N.J. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 05/31/2018. (ek)

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NORRIS BROOKS, v. : Dockets.Justia.com Civil Action No. 18-1149 (CCC) Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION UNION TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT TAC UNIT, Defendant. CECCHI, District Judge. This matter has come before the Court on a civil rights Complaint filed pro se Plaintiff by Norris Brooks pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff is proceeding informapauperis, see ECF No. 6, 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 reason stated below, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Complaint names a single defendant, the Union Township Police Department TAC Unit. However, a city police department is not a “person” amendable to suit under § 1983. See Mikhaeil v. Santos, 646 F. App’x 158, 163 (3d Cir. 2016) (“The District Court also correctly determined that the Jersey City Police Department was not a proper party to this action.”); Jackson v. City ofErie Police Dep ‘t, 570 F. App’x 112, 114 n.2 (3d Cir. 2014) (“We further agree with the District Court that the police department was not a proper party to this action.”). Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted, and is dismissed with prejudice.’ Date: Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J. The Court warns Plaintiff against filing meritless lawsuits in the future. Repeated attempts to raise meritless claims while proceeding info rma pauperis may be construed as an abuse ofprocess, and may result in severe restrictions to Plaintiffs ability to proceed informapauperis 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.