Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Drake v. Saluti

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 26, 2017

KEITH H. DRAKE, Plaintiff,
v.
GERALD M. SALUTI, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION

          Hon. Susan D. Wigenton, United States District Judge

         Presently before the Court is the complaint of Plaintiff, Keith H. Drake. (ECF No. 1). Also before this Court is Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Document 1 attached to ECF No. 1). Based on Plaintiff's application, it is clear that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is warranted in this matter, and therefore this Court will grant Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because this Court is granting that application and because Plaintiff is a state prisoner suing state employees, however, this Court is required to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. Pursuant to these statutes, this Court must dismiss Plaintiff's claims if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek damages from a defendant who is immune. For the reasons set forth below, this Court will dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, in 2007, he was convicted of second-degree sexual assault in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-2(c)(1). (ECF No. 1 at 4). At sentencing for that offense in March 2007, the prosecutors argued, and defense counsel apparently agreed, that Petitioner was subject to the terms of the No Early Release Act (“NERA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43- 7.2, which imposes a period of parole ineligibility equal to eighty-five percent of a criminal defendant's sentence where he is convicted of certain enumerated first and second degree offenses, including “subsection b. of [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:14-2 and paragraph (1) of subsection c. of [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:14-2, sexual assault.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-7.2(d)(8). The sentencing judge therefore found Petitioner subject to NERA, and sentenced Petitioner to an appropriate period of parole ineligibility in imposing sentence for Petitioner's sexual assault conviction. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Petitioner appealed, but did not challenge his NERA sentence on appeal. (Id. at 4-5). When Petitioner complained about counsel's failure to raise a challenge to the NERA sentence, counsel responded by telling Petitioner that he had been sentenced correctly under NERA. (Id. at 5).

         Petitioner apparently sought relief from his sentence from the state parole board, but was told that only the courts could grant him relief. (Id.). Petitioner also filed motions or petitions for several forms of post-conviction relief, ultimately culminating in a motion to correct an illegal sentence in which he argued that his NERA sentence was improper. (Id.). That motion was denied. (Id.). Petitioner appealed, and the Superior Court of New Jersey - Appellate Division affirmed the denial of his motion, explaining as follows:

Under the plain language of [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:43-7.2, NERA applies to second-degree sexual assault under [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:14-2(c)(1). Subsection a. of [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:43-7.2 requires that “[a] court imposing a sentence of incarceration for a crime of the first or second degree enumerated in subsection d. of this section shall fix a minimum term of 85% of the sentence imposed, during which the defendant shall not be eligible for parole.” Subsection b. similarly requires that “[t]he minimum term required by subsection a. of this section shall be fixed as a part of every sentence of incarceration imposed upon every conviction of a crime enumerated in subsection d. of this section[.]” [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:43-7.2(b)[.] Subsection d. requires that “[t]he court shall impose sentence pursuant to subsection a. of this section upon conviction of the following crimes or an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes[.]” [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:43-7.2(d)[.] Among the “following crimes” “enumerated in subsection d.” is “paragraph (1) of subsection c. of [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:14-2, sexual assault[.]” [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:43-7.2(d)(8). Because [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:14-2(c)(1) is “a crime of the ... second degree enumerated in subsection d., ” NERA applies. [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:43-7.2(a), (b), (d).

State v. Drake, 132 A.3d 1270, 1274-75 (N.J. App. Div. 2016). The Appellate Division went on to reject Plaintiff's argument that NERA would only apply to a second-degree sexual assault where there was a violation of both “subsection b. of [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:14-2 and paragraph (1) of subsection c. of [N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:14-2, ” instead finding that, based upon the legislature's intent, the statute merely laid out in section (d)(8) both forms of second degree sexual assault which individually would require a NERA sentence. Id. at 1275-82.

         In his current complaint, Plaintiff contends that NERA is “unconstitutionally vague, ” and that his sentence is therefore illegal. Plaintiff therefore seeks to bring claims for denial of his rights leading to his incarceration against several judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys involved in his case who either imposed, sought to impose, or failed to oppose Petitioner's NERA sentence. (ECF No. 1 at 4-6). Petitioner also names as a Defendant the New Jersey Parole Board, apparently for failing to provide him relief when he sought to have the Board undo his NERA sentence. (Id.).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Per the 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), or seeks damages from a state employee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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 state prisoner seeking damages from state officials who has been granted in forma pauperis status.

         According 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[1], the 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 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

         B. Analysis

         Plaintiff, in his complaint, seeks to raise claims against the Parole Board, judges, prosecutors, private defense attorneys, and public defenders, for alleged violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States that was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.” Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 806 (3d Cir. 2000); see also Woodyard v. Cnty. of Essex, 514 F.App'x 177, 180 (3d Cir. 2013) (section 1983 provides “private citizens with a means to redress violations of federal law committed by state [actors]”). “The first step in evaluating a section 1983 claim is to ‘identify the exact contours of the underlying right said to have been violated' and to determine ‘whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.