United States District Court, D. New Jersey
William McNeal, Plaintiff Pro Se
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff William McNeal's
(“Plaintiff”), submission of a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Complaint,
Docket Entry 1. At this time, the Court must review the
complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A 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 such relief. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the
complaint will be dismissed on grounds of judicial immunity
and for failure to state a claim.
brings this civil rights action against prosecutor Meghan
Hoerner, Judge Patricia Wild, and public defender Oded
Weinstock. The following factual allegations are taken from
the complaint and are accepted for purposes of this screening
only. The Court has made no findings as to the truth of
statement of claims reads in its entirety:
I was sentence[d] outside of sentence guidelines which cause
my constitutional civil rights to be violated under
amendments of constitutional of Civil Rights Act. There was
misconduct wrongdoing not for the truth but for there [sic]
own reason of deliberately, wrongness reckless, disregard for
Complaint ¶ 6. He alleges Judge Wild “allowed
[him] to received [sic] a sentence of 10y, over all due to
crime and degree.” Id. ¶ 4(c). He further
claims “Judge and Prosecutor and [his] Public Defender
should have sentenced [him] to a term of 5y. Serious Civil
Rights violation.” Id.
seeks relief in the form of $180, 000, 000 in damages.
Id. ¶ 7. He requests the appointment of pro
bono counsel. Id.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal
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), seeks redress against a governmental
employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b),
or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions,
see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. 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. This action is
subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A because
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis
and is seeking relief from government employees.
to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, “a pleading that offers ‘labels or
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'” 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive sua
sponte screening for failure to state a claim,
complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter”
to show that the claim is facially plausible. Fowler v.
UPMS Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the ...