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.

Dewel Smith v. State of New Jersey

August 19, 2011

DEWEL SMITH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint asserting that the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey courts violated his constitutional rights by employing officers who made false reports and statements and failed to report officers making false reports. (Dkt. 1 at 4.) Specifically, he alleged:

I.S.P. officer made false reports and statements against a citizen of the United States. Officer refused to produce 皻 test chain of custody report (Oct. 8, 2008 and Oct. 15, 2008). I have -drug hair test chain of custody report (Sept. 2008 till Dec. 2008).

I.S.P. officer made false reports and statement about me disclosing to him on June 11, 2008 Social Security benefits making false report and statements causing mental and emotional terrorism. (Dkt. 1 at 7)

2. On January 25, 2011, this Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint. (Dkt. 13 & 14.) This Court found that the Complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because neither of the named defendants - the State of New Jersey and the Office of the Courts of the State of New Jersey - is subject to suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); Madden v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 438 F.2d 1189, 1190 (3d Cir. 1971).

3. However, because Plaintiff's allegations did not foreclose the possibility that he might be able to assert facts stating a § 1983 claim regarding the drug test and allegedly false reports against at least one person who was acting under color of state law, this Court granted leave to file an amended complaint.

4. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 16.) He alleges the following facts:

I. background

Ninety days to complete the intensive supervised program. Having discrimination issues at work. I was a model ISP participant. Couple weeks after being set unemployed from Wildwood linen Tim shade intensive supervised program officer . . . came to my house put me in chains place me in jail. I was not a prisoner of the state of New Jersey I was a free man participating in a program of the state, all this was done with a contempt of court order. In jail for four month watching intensive supervised participants being released back to the street with serious violations by Tim Shade. Letters written to intensive supervised probation asking for an explanation of incarceration. Then one day I received a letter violating me on the program. For positive urine samples on October 8, 2008 October 15, 2008. (plaintiff has drug hair sample test all negative with Chain of custody . . . . From date of sample attached goes back 90 day). And failure to disclose SSI. Tim Shade was told June 11, 2008 of the SSI. The day I was released into the program. I was denied a public defender (because I had a mortgage on the house) there was no hearing. Only a resentencing hearing judge refused to hear argument and sent me back to prison.

II. The amended complaint

November 2008 Tim shade came to my house asking me about positive urine on October 8, 2008. And October 15, 2008. I do not use drugs. He put me in jail for two weekends. And into outpatient treatment. I asked to have my treatment switched over to VA Cape May where I was being treated for posttraumatic stress major depression and anxiety disorder. My social worker also a drug counselor. With support of my social worker I completed Tim shade requests. Then as stated in I. Background. I went back to prison. An intensive supervised program Officer Tim Shade action has damaged me. I fear at any moment the government can walk into my house at any time and take me to jail because they just don't like me. His action has hurt me for life by terrorizing me. Cause mental and emotional torment. I'm still receiving treatment for the harm that intensive supervised program caused me.

(Dkt. 16 at 1-2) (emphasis in original).

5. Several documents are attached to the ...


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.