HONE v. THOMPSON et al, No. 2:2021cv09544 - Document 2 (D.N.J. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER directing the Clerk to refile the Complaint under Civil Action No. 21-9544 as an Amended Complaint under Docket No. 21-4991, to file a copy of this Opinion and Order under both Civil Action No. 21-9544 and Civil Action 21-4991, and to close Civil Action No. 21-9544. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), etc. The Clerk shall close Civil Action No. 21-4991. (Copy of Opinion and Order sent to Plaintiff by certified mail return receipt and reg mail). Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 4/21/21. (jc, )

Download PDF

HONE v. THOMPSON et al Doc. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY RICHARD HONE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 21-4991 OPINION & ORDER v. ANNE E. THOMPSON, et al., Defendants. John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J. The Court previously granted pro se application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915( cured the deficiencies no aintiff filed an Amended Complaint, but he did so under a different docket number, Civil Action. No. 21-9544. The Court first orders s Amended Complaint under Civil Action No. 21-4991 and to close Civil Action No. 21-9544. The Court has screened the Amended Complaint and now dismisses it with prejudice. In its Prior Opinion, the Court set forth the governing legal standards, the factual allegations, and a detailed analysis. Prior Op. at 1-7. Plaintiff repeats all of the same allegations that the Court previously considered and rejected. Am. Compl. at 5-9. As a result, the Court fully incorporates its Prior Opinion here. Dockets.Justia.com The Amended Complaint, however, also adds factual allegations are (1) that a crime can be the basis of a civil rights violation, and he alleges the crime of conspiracy and forgery; (2) the j Plaintiff his civil rights (appare to deny him his rights and conspire with others, including judges; (4) prejudiced against Plaintiff because Thompson is part of the conspiracy because she ma him late. Am. Compl. at 5-6. The numerous legal errors cited by the Court in its Prior Opinion remain. In addition, the new allegations are not sufficiently pled. Instead, Plaintiff alleges in wholly conclusory fashion that his rights were violated through a conspiracy. The only specific factual allegation is that but even this allegation is devoid of factual support. The Amended Complaint is dismissed. When dismissing a case brought by a pro se plaintiff, a court must decide whether the dismissal will be with prejudice or without prejudice, the latter of which affords a plaintiff with leave to amend. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 110-11 (3d Cir. 2002). The district court may deny leave to amend only if (a) the moving party's delay in seeking amendment is undue, motivated by bad faith, or prejudicial to the non-moving party; or (b) the amendment would be futile. Adams v. Gould, Inc., 739 F.2d 858, 864 (3d Cir. 1984). The Court finds that any attempted amendment would be futile. In the Prior Opinion, the Court set forth the governing legal standards and explained the int. Plaintiff does not attempt to fix, in the Amended Complaint, any (much less all) of the deficiencies previously noted by the 2 Court. In fact, the Amended Complaint reasserts all of the facts that were previously found deficienciet. As to the new factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, they fall well short of the federal pleading standard. As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not rectified the shortcomings listed in the Prior Opinion because Plaintiff is unable to do so. As a result, any future amendment would be futile. Accordingly, and for good cause shown, IT IS on this 21st day of April, 2021, ORDERED e Complaint under Civil Action No. 21-9544 as an Amended Complaint under Docket No. 21-4991; and it is further ORDERED a copy of this Opinion and Order under both Civil Action No. 21-9544 and Civil Action No. 21-4991; and it is further ORDERED vil Action No. 21-9544; and it is further ORDERED DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff by regular mail and by certified mail return receipt; and it is further ORDERED all close this matter. ___________________________________ John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J. 3

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.