Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RODESKY v. BROWN

October 17, 2005.

ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER RODESKY, Plaintiff,
v.
DEVON BROWN, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARY COOPER, District Judge

OPINION

Plaintiff Anthony Christopher Rodesky, confined at the New Jersey State Prison, seeks to bring a action in forma pauperis, alleging violations of constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based on his affidavit of indigence and the absence of three qualifying dismissals within 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 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.

  The Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A 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. The Court concludes that the complaint is subject to dismissal. But Plaintiff will be permitted to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies in the instant complaint.

  BACKGROUND

  The facts are taken from the complaint and assumed true for purposes of this review. Plaintiff seeks to sue the following defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Devon Brown, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections; Ronald Cathel, Administrator of New Jersey State Prison; Charles Ellis, Chief of Staff of the Department of Corrections; and Michelle Ricci, Associate Administrator of the New Jersey State Prison.

  Plaintiff states, without specificity, he has notified these defendants of violations of his constitutional rights on certain dates, including: his right to access the courts; his right to possess religious materials; his right to recreation; "illegal placement" on a certain cell block; and his right to make legal and personal telephone calls. Plaintiff provides no further facts on these alleged claims. He also claims that defendants are violating his rights under the New Jersey Administrative Code. Plaintiff seeks an injunction and punitive damages.

  DISCUSSION

  A. Standard of Review

  The purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") is "primarily to curtail claims brought by prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Torts Claims Act . . . many of which are routinely dismissed as legally frivolous." Santana v. United States, 98 F.3d 752, 755 (3d Cir. 1996). Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), a court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, any prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

  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 v. Kerber, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981).

  In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21; 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 Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). But the Court need not credit a pro se plaintiff's "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions." Id.

  Where a complaint can be remedied by an amendment, a district court may not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, but must permit the amendment. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dep't, 91 F.3d 451, 453 (3d Cir. 1996).

  B. Section 1983 Actions

  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, second, that the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.