United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Germe, Plaintiff Pro Se
E. THOMPSON U.S. District Judge.
the Court is Linus Germe's ("Plaintiff") 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 with prejudice.
brings this civil rights action against the Public Defenders
Office of Middlesex County, and attorneys Howard Barman and
Luis Negron. 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
states that he was originally charged with talking with an
undercover officer posing as a minor, but indicted for
engaging in sexual conduct. Complaint ¶ 4. He states his
attorneys, Barman and Negron, did nothing for him and just
wanted him to take a plea. Id. at 5. He states he
has an unspecified mental health issue. Ibid.
Plaintiff alleges Mr. Barman told him that Plaintiff
"that [he] should be glad to have them they saved [his]
life." Ibid. He then alleges unspecified
violations of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights and asserts there should have been a psychiatric
evaluation. Ibid. He alleges Mr. Barman is
withholding his medical report from Plaintiff and the trial
court. "[I]n that report will prove that any evidence
the state thought they have against me, cannot be use [sic]
in court. No evidence no case." Id. at 7.
asks for relief in the form of dismissal of the criminal
indictment and $500, 000. Id. at 9.
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) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
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 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).
determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court
must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
93-94 (2007) (following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)); see also United States v. Day, 969
F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). Although pro se
pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiffs "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).