The opinion of the court was delivered by: FREDA WOLFSON, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Phillip Wood ("Wood"), is a civilly committed patient
at the Ann Klein Forensic Center in West Trenton, New Jersey. He
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, the Court will grant
plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and order the Clerk of the Court
to file the Complaint.
At this time, the Court must review the Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) 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. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Complaint
should be dismissed.
In his Complaint, Wood contends that defendant, Judge Thomas S.
Smith, had Wood involuntarily committed to a state mental
hospital on October 18, 2002, when he did not require such
treatment. (Complaint, ¶ 6). Wood also alleges that defendant Dr.
Beneto Marty testified falsely in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, on December 6, 2002. (Id.).
Wood seeks compensatory money damages in an unspecified amount.
(Compl., ¶ 7).
II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
In any civil action in which the plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis, the Court is required to identify cognizable
claims and to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the
Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);
United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). The Court
must "accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all
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). The Court
need not, however, credit a pro se plaintiff's "bald
assertions" or "legal conclusions." Id.
A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989) (interpreting the predecessor of § 1915(e)(2), the former
§ 1915(d)). The standard for evaluating whether a complaint is
"frivolous" is an objective one. Deutsch v. United States,
67 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (3d Cir. 1995).
A pro se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a
claim only if it appears "`beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle
him to relief.'" Haines, 404 U.S. at 521 (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Milhouse v. Carlson,
652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981). However, where a complaint can be
remedied by an amendment, a district court may not dismiss the
complaint with prejudice, but must permit the amendment. Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992); Alston v. Parker,
363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004) (complaint that satisfied notice pleading
requirement that it contain short, plain statement of the claim
but lacked sufficient detail to function as a guide to discovery was not required to be dismissed for failure to state a claim;
district court should permit a curative amendment before
dismissing a complaint, unless an amendment would be futile or
inequitable); Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103,
108 (3d Cir. 2002) (dismissal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir.
2000) (dismissal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)); Urrutia
v. Harrisburg County Police Dept., 91 F.3d 451, 453 (3d Cir.
III. SECTION 1983 ACTIONS
Wood brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights guaranteed under the United States
Constitution. 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, ...