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.

Bey v. Pennsauken Municipal Court

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

March 12, 2018

ATIYA KIRKLAND BEY, Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSAUKEN MUNICIPAL COURT, STEVEN M. PETRILLO, DONNA M. KENNEY, MERCHANTVILLE MUNICIPAL COURT, OREN R. THOMAS, III, MAUREEN F. FINNEGAN, ROSMARY S. KELLY, ALICIA D. HOFFMEYER, CAMDEN MUNICIPAL COURT, PALMIRA WHITE, TONYA STEWART, CHRISTINE T.J. TUCKER, SHARON EGGLESTON, ELISSA REDMER, DONNA LEE VITALE, DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, MELISSA IDLER, JENNY ESPINAL, JENNIFER DISANTIS, STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER LAW GUARDIAN, URIJAH SUAREZ, EDEN FAYTHE FELD, LAUREN PETTY, KELLY DONEGAN, PAUL FITZPATRICK, EVESHAM MUNICIPAL COURT, CHERYL BEAUMONT, STACI HEAVNER, CAMDEN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, LINDA W. ENYON, NALO BROWN, MARY WIESEMAN, MARY EVA COLALILLO, KAREN J. CAPLAN, DAVID ANDERSON, DAVID GARNES, RODERICK T. BALTIMORE, TEOFILO MONTANEZ-SANTIAGO, KELLY DONEGAN, IRIS MOORE, CHRIS CHRISTIE, CAMDEN MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCERS, CAMDEN PARKING AUTHORITY, STARR M. WATSON KIRKLAND, EVESHAM TOWNSHIP CODE ENFORCERS, WESTVILLE CODE ENFORCERS, WOODLYNNE MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCERS, KENNEDY HOSPITAL, ST. CECILIA SCHOOL, PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY, DELAWARE VALLEY PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION, FAMILY PART, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY FOR THE DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, CARISSA FERGUSONTHOMAS, MERYL E. UDELL, TENICHA TOWNSEND-MOBLEY, DCFLO- CAMDEN NORTH, J. CLINE, JOEL SCHNEIDER, ANN MARIE DONIO, DEAN GIRARD NASSON, BRADFORD GILL, ERICA G. SMITH, G. QUINTANA, BRUCE BULLOCK, DAWN BRANCH, LISA VON PIER, JESSICA TROMBETTA, CHARMAINE THOMAS, BRIAN C. ROSS, CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO, JAMES LOUIS, JOSEPH E. KARKARA, LORRAINE M. AUGUSTINI, CENTRALIZED INFRACTIONS BUREAU, NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PENNSAUKEN MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCERS, and NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONER, Defendants. v.

          ATIYA KIRKLAND BEY Appearing pro se.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         WHEREAS Plaintiff Atiya Kirkland Bey, appearing pro se, filed a complaint on October 17, 2017, followed by a November 30, 2017 amended complaint, asserted against seventy-nine named defendants; and

         WHEREAS Plaintiff claims she was forced to have supervised visitation with her son against her will and that she was pulled over by "code enforcers" unlawfully and given parking tickets in "violati[on of her] constitutional rights"; and

         WHEREAS Plaintiff asks for "all records . . . corrected, expunged and sealed, " "a copy of all [of her] records, " "a formal written apology from" various individuals, "$1 billion dollars" "[f]or all of [her] stress, defamation of character and forced separation from [her] son, " and not to "be on the . . . detain list"; and

         WHEREAS Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees ("in forma pauperis" or "IFP" application), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court may allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of fees if he submits a proper IFP application; and

         WHEREAS, although § 1915 refers to "prisoners, " federal courts apply § 1915 to non-prisoner IFP applications, Hickson v. Mauro, No. 11-6304, 2011 WL 6001088, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2011) (citing Lister v. Dep't of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005)); Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312 ("Section 1915(a) applies to all persons applying for IFP status, and not just to prisoners."); and

         WHEREAS the screening provisions of the IFP statute require a federal court to dismiss an action sua sponte if, among other things, the action is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to comply with the proper pleading standards, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); Martin v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, No. 17-3129, 2017 WL 3783702, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2017) ("Federal law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit."); and

         WHEREAS pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and all reasonable latitude must be afforded the pro se litigant, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), but pro se litigants "must still plead the essential elements of [their] claim and [are] not excused from conforming to the standard rules of civil procedure, " McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) ("[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel."); Sykes v. Blockbuster Video, 205 Fed.Appx. 961, 963 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding that pro se plaintiffs are expected to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); and

         WHEREAS Plaintiff does not provide sufficient factual allegations to support her claim that the Federal Constitution and various statutes[1] were violated, see generally Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149-50 n.3 (1984) ("Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set forth an intricately detailed description of the asserted basis for relief, they do require that the pleadings 'give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957))); and

         WHEREAS Plaintiff further does not plead the basis for any liability for the majority of the named defendants; and

         WHEREAS, for those named defendants Plaintiff does attempt to plead liability, namely Melissa Idler, Jenny Espinal, Starr Watson Kirkland, Linda Enyon, and the Pennsauken Municipal Code Enforcers, Plaintiff's vague, conclusory allegations fail to satisfy the pleading standards required in civil actions by Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), see Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) ("[A] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to 'show' such an entitlement with its facts."); and

         WHEREAS the Court therefore finds Plaintiff's ...


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.