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.

McKinney v. Prosecutor's Office

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 29, 2015

IVAN G. MCKINNEY, Plaintiff,
v.
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. IVAN G. MCKINNEY, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE SUPERINTENDENT — SOUTH WOODS STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. IVAN G. MCKINNEY, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. HEMSLEY, et al, Defendants.

OPINION

KEVIN McNULTY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff, Ivan G. McKinney, is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with three separate civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as a result of a prior order severing his original complaint. Presently pending before the Court is a letter that this Court construes as a request for reconsideration of the Court's screening Opinion and Order in Civ. No. 13-2553 as well as a request to amend his claims to add a defendant in Civ. No. 14-3564. For the following reasons, the request for reconsideration in Civ. No. 13-2553 will be denied, and Mr. McKinney's request to amend his complaint in Civ. No. 14-3564 will be denied without prejudice. Mr. McKinney's requested for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice at this time. Finally, Mr. McKinney's request for emergency relief in Civ. No. 14-3563 will be denied.

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. McKinney filed his original complaint in April, 2013. ( See Civ. No. 13-2553.) The complaint listed thirty-two defendants and contained thirty numbered paragraphs. Generally, but not always, each paragraph of the original complaint named one defendant. The paragraphs of the original complaint were narratives that sometimes seemed to contain more than one claim. I gleaned from the complaint that Mr. McKinney was convicted of charges involving drugs and sexual contact with a minor.

In June, 2014, this Court screened the original complaint. The plethora of claims and defendants that Mr. McKinney named in his original complaint were divided into four categories identified as Categories A, B, C and D.

A. Screening of Category A

Category A related to Mr. McKinney's claims of unconstitutional arrest and search. The following defendants were associated with his claims in Category A:

. As noted in the screening Opinion, "[t]he gist of the complaint is that the parole officers conducted a search and interrogation, based on McKinney's status as a parolee, but that this provided a pretext for the police interrogation, search, and warrantless arrest, which lacked a sufficient basis." See McKinney v. Prosecutor's Office, No. 13-2553, 2014 WL 2574414, at *2 (D.N.J. June 4, 2014).

Mr. McKinney's illegal search and seizure claims and false arrest claims in Category A were deemed to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) because the claims called into question the validity of his state criminal conviction. See McKinney, 2014 WL 2574414, at *3-4. They were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the event Mr. McKinney's state conviction was overturned.

B. Screening of Category B

Category B related to Mr. McKinney's criminal trial and the proceedings surrounding it. The following defendants were associated with Mr. McKinney's claims in Category B:

The Court dismissed the claims against Judge Guida, who presided over Mr. McKinney's criminal trial, primarily on grounds of judicial immunity. See McKinney, 2014 WL 2574414, at *5. I dismissed the claims against John Doe Assistant Superintendent of Clifton Schools for failure to state a federal claim. Id. at *5-6. The claims against

I dismissed the claims against the prosecutors, Calviello, Higgins and Molinelli, primarily on grounds of prosecutorial immunity and the unavailability of respondeat superior liability. See McKinney, 2014 WL 2574414, at *6.1 found that the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office itself enjoyed immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, as well. See id. at *7.

I dismissed the claims against the investigators, Santiago and Andriulli, because they were barred by Heck, without prejudice to renewal if the conviction is vacated. See id.

Finally, within Category B, I dismissed Mr. McKinney's claims against the juvenile victim's parents, Duenes and Zambrano. The claims would be barred by Heck, and in any event these private individuals were not state actors for purposes of § 1983 liability. See McKinney, 2014 WL 2574414, at *7-8.

C. Screening of Category C

Category C related to Mr. McKinney's claims that he was wrongfully deprived of needed medical care while incarcerated at the South Woods State Prison. Mr. McKinney named the following three defendants in his Category C claims:

Mr. McKinney cited the lack of surgical treatment for his hernia, injured knee, herniated discs and neck injuries. This Court found that Mr. McKinney's allegations were sufficient to permit these claims to proceed past the screening stage. See id. at *8-9.

D. Screening of Category D

Category D related to Mr. McKinney's circumstances while he was incarcerated at the Bergen County Jail. He named the following as defendants in Category D:

I dismissed Mr. McKinney's all claims against the Bergen County Jail because it is not a suable "person" under § 1983. See McKinney, 2014 WL 2574414, at *11.

Mr. McKinney's claims that Bigott, Davies, Pickel, Hemsley and Pawson failed to respond to his medical complaints or to furnish medical treatment ...


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.