United States District Court, D. New Jersey
L. WOLFSON, U.S.D.J.
matter has been opened to the Court by William Pittman's
(“Plaintiff's”) filing of a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an
application for pro bono counsel. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.)
The Court previously granted Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2, 2.) For
the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss the
entire Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court dismisses the claims against Middlesex County
Probation Department and Criminal Case Management with
prejudice, as these entities are not persons under
§1983. The Court dismisses the personal capacity claims
against the individual Defendants without prejudice as barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In light
of the dismissal of the Complaint, the application for
pro bono counsel is likewise denied.
was not incarcerated at the time he filed the instant
Complaint and has sued the Middlesex County Probation
Department, Evelyn Cruz Carofilis, Kathie DeFuria, Bruce
Morgan, Jeffrey Israel, Janine Abdalla, Andrea Poland,
“Criminal Case Management, ” and “all known
and unknown” for violations of his civil rights in
connection with the use of a sealed psychiatric report or
evaluation (“Psychiatric Report”) in his
presentence report (“PSR”). (ECF No. 1,
Compl. at ¶¶ 1-2, 8.) The individual Defendants
appear to be employees at the Middlesex County Probation
Department, Criminal Case Management Unit, which has
responsibility, in relevant part, for the preparation of
presentence reports for the state court. According to
Plaintiff, the Psychiatric Report at issue was “ruled
illegal” and “sealed by [a state court judge] in
the Middlesex County Superior Court  on May 27, 2003.
(Id. at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff states that he sues the
individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
(Id. at ¶ 7.)
alleges that he was interviewed by Defendant Abdalla, then
Janine Khale, in 2005 while he was incarcerated at Bayside
State Prison, and Abdalla improperly questioned him about the
Psychiatric Report. Plaintiff told Abdalla that the report
was sealed and could not be used, but Abdalla allegedly used
the psychiatric report for an unspecified purpose.
(Id.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion in the
Middlesex County Superior Court, and a state court judge
allegedly ruled again that the matter was sealed.
27, 2012, “[P]laintiff was ordered by the state court
to report to criminal case management[.]”
(Id.) During an intake evaluation, Defendant Bruce
Morgan allegedly asked Plaintiff about the Psychiatric
Report. (Id.) Plaintiff told Defendant Morgan that
the report was sealed and that it could not be used against
him. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Morgan “would
still use the report, [k]nowing it was a sealed
matter.” (Id.) Later in the Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that he repeatedly told Defendant Morgan
that the Psychiatric Report was sealed and that two judges
had ruled that it could not be used against him.
(Id. at ¶ 23.) Plaintiff appears to allege that
the Psychiatric Report was used by Morgan to get Plaintiff
“medical help” and to harass him. (Id.)
November 6, 2013, Plaintiff was ordered by a judge to report
to Criminal Case Management in order to “have a [PSR]
done” in a then-pending case against him. (Id.) At
that time, Defendant Abdalla once again interviewed and
questioned Plaintiff about the Psychiatric Report.
(Id.) Plaintiff told Abdalla that the Psychiatric
Report was “ruled illegal[.]” (Id.)
Plaintiff appears to allege that the PSR included or
incorporated information from the Psychiatric Report and
states that he would not sign the consent form or the PSR.
(Id.) Plaintiff subsequently wrote to the sentencing
judge about the matter, and the judge “stated the court
has not relied on the prior psychiatric evaluation and the
probation department should also disregard the same.”
to Plaintiff, Defendants Abdala, DeFuria, and
“[C]riminal [C]ase [M]anagement” “assisted
with the preparation of the [PSR] in order “to paint a
bad picture of [Plaintiff], knowing that the Sentencing Judge
 would review it” and that it would also be reviewed
by the state prison, classification[, ] a[nd] parole.
(Id. at ¶¶ 12-15.) Plaintiff appears to
allege that Defendants included the Psychiatric Report in the
PSR so that Plaintiff would be treated “harshly”
by the sentencing judge, and receive harsher treatment from
prison, classification, and parole officials. (Id.
at ¶¶ 15-17.)
to the Complaint, the Middlesex County Probation Department
“is responsible for its staff and their actions and
[d]id nothing to assist in the matter[.]” (Id.
at ¶ 18.) Plaintiff also states that “[t]he
actions of [C]riminal [C]ase [M]anagement were totally
against policy.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) Several
of the individual Defendants are sued in their supervisory
capacities. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kathie Defuria
was “the supervisor and did nothing to assist in the
matter” after the state courts ordered that the
psychiatric report was a sealed matter and was to be
disregarded. Defendant Defuria also allegedly “read the
[PSR] and still signed it in order to harass Plaintiff.
(Id. at 11.) The Complaint also identifies Defendant
Jeffrey Israel as “the team leader” who
“signed the [PSR].” (Id. at ¶ 23.)
Finally, Defendant Evelyn Cruz Carolfilis is described in the
Complaint as the “supervisor at the time of [Defendant]
Bruce Morgan [sic] actions.” (Id.)
addition to receiving harsh treatment by the sentencing
court, Plaintiff has allegedly experienced “prolong[ed]
worry” as a result of Defendants' inclusion of the
Psychiatric Report in his PSR. (Id. at ¶¶
15, 17.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages
for alleged violations of his civil rights. (Id.)
Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134,
§§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26,
1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review
complaints in those civil actions in which a prisoner is
proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). “While much of the language in
Section 1915 addresses ‘prisoners, ' section
1915(e)(2) applies with equal force to prisoner as well as
nonprisoner in forma pauperis cases.”
Stamos v. New Jersey, No. CIVA095828 (PGS), 2010 WL
457727, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2010), aff'd, 396
F.App'x 894 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Jayne v. Pike
County Correctional Facility, Civil No. 3:CV-07-1113,
2009 WL 4906520, at *1 n. 1 (M.D. Pa. Dec.15, 2009)). The
PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss
any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for certain violations of his or her constitutional