United States District Court, D. New Jersey
STANLEY L. NIBLACK, Plaintiff,
SCO WILLIAM GOULD, et al., Defendants.
B. KUGLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Stanley L. Niblack, is a state prisoner currently
incarcerated at the South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton,
New Jersey. In November, 2015, Mr. Niblack filed a pro
se civil rights complaint in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, County of Hudson Law Division. Subsequently, that
matter was removed to this Court in January, 2016.
Thereafter, the two defendants who had been served with the
complaint at that time, William Gould and Charles Ray Hughes,
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. That motion to
dismiss was granted in part. Mr. Niblack's access to
courts claim against Gould and Hughes was dismissed.
Furthermore, this Court conducted a sua sponte
screening of the remaining complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. This Court determined that Mr. Niblack failed
to state a federal claim on the remainder of his complaint.
Furthermore, this Court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over any state law claims that Mr. Niblack was
attempting to bring. Mr. Niblack was given the opportunity to
file an amended complaint and has done so. That amended
complaint is again subject to this Court's screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to determine whether it
should be dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or fails 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 for failure to state a federal claim and this
Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Mr. Niblack's state law claims. Mr. Niblack shall be
given one final opportunity to file a second amended
complaint should he elect to do so that will also be subject
to this Courts sua sponte screening pursuant to
allegations of the amended complaint will be construed as
true for purposes of this screening opinion. Mr. Niblack
names five defendants in his amended complaint: (1) SCO
William Gould; (2) Sergeant Moore; (3) Lieutenant Caliski;
(4) SCO Mutcherson; and (5) Charles Ray Hughes.
allegations of the amended complaint concern the time Mr.
Niblack was incarcerated at the Southern State Correctional
Facility (“SSCF”). In late 2014 and early 2015,
Mr. Niblack was having problems obtaining sufficient law
library time at SSCF. Eventually, Mr. Niblack received
permission to obtain a word processor.
2015, his word processor was sent out for repairs. It was
returned to him on June 21, 2015, after being repaired.
this time, it appears that Mr. Niblack had a pending state
matter pending. That matter involved a claim by Mr. Niblack
for the destruction, stealing, losing or giving away of his
property that included his food, radio, watch, sneakers,
designer eyewear and headphones on or about April 3, 2014. A
motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants in Mr.
Niblack's state case on June 19, 2015. Mr. Niblack was
informed about this motion on June 22, 2015.
22, 2015, Mr. Niblack sought to use his word processor to
respond to the motion to dismiss. Mr. Niblack then alleges
The plaintiff thereafter sought to use his word processor
when SCO Mutcherson was on and she denied the plaintiff usage
of his word processor as well in order to seek the filing of
my opposition of defendants motion to dismiss in retaliation
of my complaints regarding officers.
The plaintiff spoke to Lieutenant Caliski, in regards to him
granting plaintiff or confirming my use of my word processor
to address my legal matters and store legal information on it
who then stated that he was not going against his officers.
Although, he had acknowledged that it was the administration
who had approved the use of a word processor for legal
On June 24, 2015, the plaintiff forwarded an inquiry form
that was intercepted by Sergeant Moore who denied me usage
and the ability to retrieve relevant and pertinent
information regarding the dismis[s]al of my underlying
claims. But, Sergeant Moore never sent a written response to
(Dkt. No. 16 at p.3-4) Mr. Niblack then states that he was
unable to submit a timely opposition to the motion to dismiss
in the state matter. Accordingly, his complaint was
Niblack states that the defendants frustrated, impaired and
impeded his access to the courts. Furthermore, he asserts
that the defendants retaliated against him for exercising his