United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCNULTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Amended Complaint (ECF no. 31, cited as "AC"),
filed by Dereck McKinnie, pro se, arises primarily,
but not exclusively, from a family dispute over real property
in Jersey City. The circumstances are described in detail in
a prior opinion in this action which granted the motion of
certain defendants to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
(Opinion, ECF no. 48, cited as "Op.") Now before
the court is the motion (ECF no. 62) of additional defendants
(the "Jersey City Defendants") to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Having received no response to the motion, I issued an order
to show cause. (ECF no. 64) In response, Mr. McKinnie filed a
short statement to the effect that he opposed the motion,
referring to prior papers that he had filed. (ECF no. 66) It
was accompanied by a letter application to permit filing of
this opposition out of time, which I will grant. (ECF no. 67)
The Jersey City Defendants' motion to dismiss is
therefore ripe for decision.
Prior Dismissals and This Motion
Amended Complaint cites extensively to 100 pages of exhibits
(ECF no. 1-1) that were attached to the original complaint,
which was dismissed (ECF nos. 29, 30). The plaintiff
continues to rely on them, and in the prior Opinion I
reviewed diem in order to get a sense of the allegations.
(See Op. 2-8) That prior opinion, in which I
dismissed the Amended Complaint as against certain
defendants, is incorporated by reference, and familiarity
widi its contents is assumed. Suffice it to say that Mr.
McKinnie, having already sued his relatives in state court
and brought one prior federal action, now sues several groups
of defendants, including Jersey City, its police department,
and several police officers; County and municipal courts and
court personnel; the Hudson County Prosecutor's Office
(HCPO) and individual prosecutors; and two attorneys.
orders and opinions of the court dismissed the Amended
Complaint as against three groups of defendants: the court
and court personnel at the County level; the HCPO and
prosecutors; and the two attorneys. (See Orders, ECF nos. 49,
56) Here are the defendants that remain active on the docket:
1. Jersey City Municipal Court Prosecutor Office
2. Linda Artiston, DO
3. Joe Taallabaus
4. Steven Hummell
5. City of Jersey City
6. Jersey City Police Department
7. P.O. Evan
8. P.O. Green
9. P.O. Sgt. Sarno
10. P.O. Butler
11. Sgt. George Rolando
12. Det. William Jackson
twelve defendants, all associated with the City of Jersey
City and represented by Corporation Counsel, I will refer to
as the "Jersey City Defendants." They are the
movants on this motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF
no. 62) As to these defendants, I construe the Amended
Complaint as primarily asserting a federal constitutional
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
STANDARD ON MOTION TO DISMISS
defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the
dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, if it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of showing
that no claim has been stated. Animal Science Products,
Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462, 469 n. 9
(3d Cir. 2011).
minimum, a complaint must contain
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for
the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
the seminal modern cases of Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly,550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), the Third Circuit has