United States District Court, D. New Jersey
JAMES D. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
KEVIN McNULTY, District Judge.
Plaintiff, James D. Davis, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 19, 2015, this Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. The complaint was dismissed, in part without prejudice, and Mr. Davis was given leave to file an amended complaint. Davis has now filed an amended complaint and I will order the Clerk to reopen this case.
At this time, the Court must review the amended complaint, as it did the original 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 suit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
A. Original Complaint
Mr. Davis's original complaint named the following defendants: (1) Jersey City Police Department; (2) Matthew Kilroy - Jersey City Police Officer; (3) Jason Perez - Jersey City Police Officer; (4) Ansetti & Associates; and (5) Vincent Ansetti - Attorney at Law at Ansetti & Associates.
Mr. Davis's claims against the attorney defendants centered on Ansetti's alleged failure to prepare for a suppression hearing. I dismissed the Section 1983 civil rights claims against the attorneys because these defendants did not act under color of state law. Because the attorneys' liability was barred as a matter of law, that dismissal was with prejudice.
Mr. Davis's claims against the police defendants centered on a traffic stop that occurred on June 25, 2012. He claimed that the officers searched his vehicle without probable cause, which led directly to his arrest for illegal possession of a gun. I held that the claims against the police defendants were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Because the applicability of the statute of limitations may be fact-dependent, this dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint. ( See Screening Opinion and Order, Dkt. Nos. 2 and 3.)
B. Amended Complaint
Mr. Davis has now submitted an amended complaint. The allegations of the amended complaint will be construed as true for purposes of this screening. The amended complaint names three defendants: (1) Jersey City Police Department; (2) Matthew Kilory - Jersey City Police Officer; and (3) Jason Perez - Jersey City Police Officer. As before, Mr. Davis alleges in the amended complaint that Kilory and Perez violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his car without probable cause in the course of a traffic stop on June 25, 2012. He requests monetary damages.
Mr. Davis argues that the time bar of the statute of limitations should be excused because he lacks knowledge of the law.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Standard for Sua Sponte ...