United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCNULTY United States District Judge.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
plaintiff, Steven Brown, is a pretrial detainee at the
Passaic County Jail. He is proceeding pro se with
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He has filed separate actions, captioned above, against
two parole officers. The complaints are similar, however, and
they arise from the same events. I therefore consider them
together, and direct that this opinion be filed in both
this Court screened Mr. Brown's original complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.
Mr. Brown's original complaint raised two distinct
claims: (1) that these defendant Parole Officer, conspired to
illegally search his home and arrest him without a warrant on
May 2, 2012; and (2) that they provided false testimony
against him before a grand jury on March 13, 2013. The second
claim I dismissed with prejudice because a grand jury witness
has absolute immunity from any § 1983 claim based on the
witness's testimony. The first claim I dismissed as
untimely under the applicable two-year statute of
limitations. This dismissal, however, was without prejudice,
and I instructed Mr. Brown that he could file a proposed
amended complaint asserting facts tending to establish that
the statute of limitations should be tolled or otherwise did
Brown filed a request for an extension of time to file a
proposed amended complaint, and thereafter filed an
application to amend, with a proposed amended complaint. Mr.
Brown's request for an extension of time to file his
proposed amended complaint will be granted, and the Clerk
will be ordered to reopen the file and file the proposed
proposed amended complaint, like the original complaint, is
subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. Under these statutes, I 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 suit. For the
following reasons, the amended complaint will be dismissed
facts are based on the amended complaint and documents
attached to it.
1999, Mr. Brown pled guilty to sexual assault and was
sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. The sentence, under
Megan's Law, also included community supervision for
life. Attached to the complaint is a form entitled
"Community Supervision for Life, " signed by Mr.
Brown, containing the conditions of supervision. Among them
are a provision that "18.1 am to permit the assigned
parole officer to visit me at any time at home or elsewhere
and permit confiscation of an[y] contraband observed in plain
view by the parole officer." A special condition of
supervision is that "2.1 am to refrain from possession
or use of a computer with internet access without the prior
approval of the District Par[ole] Supervisor."
2, 2012, Parole Officers Cantineri and Schreck, along with
some police officers, went to Mr. Brown's home. They were
admitted by a third person. Inside they seized a phone and
computer, and arrested Mr. Brown for violation of his
conditions of parole supervision. A complaint and arrest
warrant were immediately obtained. Mr. Brown was charged with
a violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-6.4(d). The
allegation was that, having been convicted of a sexual
offense carrying a condition of community supervision for
life, he violated the condition of his supervision that
forbade him from possessing a computer with internet
March 13, 2013, the grand jury heard testimony. Mr. Brown was
indicted for the parole violation offense.
Brown now sues for damages under the civil rights laws. The
basis for the claims is somewhat unclear. At the root of it
seems to be a contention that Mr. Brown is not a danger and
should never have been placed on lifetime supervision in the
first place. He claims that the defendant Parole Officers
arrested him without probable cause, were responsible for the
filing of a false arrest report, and testified falsely before
the grand jury.
Grand Jury Testimony
Brown has re-alleged his claims against the defendant Parole
Officers based on their allegedly false grand jury testimony.
As noted above, similar claims have already been dismissed
with prejudice based on absolute immunity. See Rehberg v.