The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge
THE PLAINTIFF PRO SE applies for in-forma-pauperis relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ("Application") in this action (1) transferred here by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and (2) brought against the defendants, (a) K. Warraich, who is identified as a police officer, and (b) the Asbury Park Police Department. (Dkt. entry no. 4, 4-1-08 S.D.N.Y. Order; id., Applic.) The plaintiff states that (1) his only source of income is "SSI" payments of "$567.00", which the Court assumes he receives monthly, as he does not clarify this on the Application, and (2) he pays $215 each month for rent. The Court will grant the Application and file the complaint.*fn1
The Court may (1) review the complaint, and (2) dismiss it sua sponte if 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)(B). A frivolous complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, as it contains "inarguable legal conclusion[s]" or "fantastic or delusional scenarios". Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989).
A pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A 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 a court need not credit a plaintiff's bald assertions or legal conclusions. Id.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages pursuant to "State Claims of, inter alia, Assault & Battery, False Imprisonment and Arrest, Abuse of Process, and Malicious Prosecution, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress" (dkt. entry no. 4, Compl., at 2), as well as "stalking and extortion" (id. at 8-9) ("State Claims"). (See id. at 5-7 (describing State Claims).) The plaintiff also asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § ("Section") 1983 against the defendants for (1) a violation of the right of association under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment by prohibiting him from associating with Asbury Park residents ("Free Association Claim") (id. at 7-8), and (2) false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution ("Other Federal Claims"). (Id. at 10).*fn2
The claims are related to (1) his arrest on January 8, 2008 (id. at 3), and (2) "the filing of perjuries and false and sham criminal charges" against him. (Id. at 1.) He asserts that Warraich "falsely filed a sworn criminal information charging [him]" with certain crimes. (Id. at 4; see id. at 6 ("defendant instituted said criminal justice system actions"); see id. at 8 (defendants "institut[ed] criminal justice system charges based upon false crimes/offenses").)
The plaintiff's description of the progress of the criminal charges is difficult to follow:
That same charging document has gone through the New Jersey Criminal Court system hand, i.e. (1) the charging police officer; (2) the superior officer, (3) Court Clerk's Office, and noone; not engaged in the identical racism, withdrew the charging information, and in effect, have sanctioned and applauded the "Coon" language it was authored and drafted in. The plaintiff was required to travel and from the Courthouses within New Jersey upon the above matter . . . .
(Id. at 4-5 (as stated in original).) Based on his own description, he appears to have been charged with (1) disorderly conduct, N.J.S.A. § 2C:33-2(a), and (2) resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. § 2C:29-2(a). (Id. at 4.) It is unclear whether other charges were issued.
III. Dismissing Free Association Claim
The Court will dismiss the Free Association Claim, as it merely asserts a generalized right to social association. See City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 25 (1989); Roberts ...