The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, District Judge
Plaintiff Robert Peterson, a pre-trial detainee confined at Atlantic County Correctional Facility in Mays Landing, New Jersey, 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 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.
At this time, the Court must review the Complaint 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 following factual allegations are taken from Plaintiff's Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of this review.
Plaintiff alleges that on January 20, 2009, he was arrested for armed robbery. Plaintiff does not identify the individuals who arrested him.
Plaintiff alleges that on January 19, 2009, the day before his arrest, Wildwood Police Det. Sgt. Kenneth Gallagher and Det. Chris Korobellis responded to a reported robbery of the Wawa convenience store located at 3200 New Jersey Avenue in Wildwood. The alleged victim, Gerry A Best, Jr., reported that he was robbed while waiting for his friend Bruce Pearson. Pearson allegedly arrived in a silver car with four other individuals: Amy Bianchino, the driver, Ashley Funk, the front seat passenger, and two unnamed black males who exited the vehicle when it arrived at the Wawa and allegedly robbed Mr. Best. Det. Sgt. Gallagher and Det. Korobellis took a statement from Mr. Best.
Shortly after the robbery was reported, a Lower Township officer pulled over a silver Impala containing Amy Bianchino, Ashley Funk, and Bruce Pearson. The officer allegedly observed the handle of a gun in plain view under the driver seat. The three people in the car were detained. During their initial taped interviews, none of these individuals identified Plaintiff as one of the two black males allegedly involved in the robbery. Later, after viewing a photographic line-up, Bianchino, Funk, and Best identified Plaintiff as one of the individuals involved in the robbery. Plaintiff alleges that the photographs were not shown sequentially to these individuals; he also alleges that there is no record of the circumstances surrounding the photographic line-up. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he was identified by a former girlfriend, Iesha Tatem, who allegedly knew him only by a nickname, but identified him when she was shown a single photograph of him.
Plaintiff asserts that his arrest violated his right not to be deprived of liberty without due process. He names as defendants Detective Christopher Korobellis, Det. Sgt. Kenneth Gallagher, and the Wildwood Police Department.
II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL This Court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis and prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions).
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).
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).
In addition, any complaint must comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A complaint must plead facts sufficient at least to "suggest" a basis for liability. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 n.12 (3d Cir. 2004). "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only 'give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). While a complaint ... does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 ...