United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Theodore Robinson, No. 41659 Cumberland County Jail Plaintiff
L. Costello, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Counsel for
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Albert Theodore Robinson filed a Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of New Jersey Drug
Court, the New Jersey Department of Corrections, the
Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office, and the Cumberland
County Prosecutor Jennifer Webb McRae. ECF No. 1 at 7. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated beyond
his “maximum expiration of sentence” because his
jail time credits were improperly recalculated and reduced
while he was incarcerated. Id. at 8. Presently
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, which is ripe for adjudication. ECF No. 7-3. For
the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion and
dismiss the Complaint, with leave to amend granted.
Albert Theodore Robinson is presently incarcerated at the
Cumberland County Jail in Bridgeton, New
Jersey. According to his Complaint, Plaintiff was
sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, which consisted
of “multiple concurrent and consecutive sentences
running concurrent and consecutively with over 5 years of
jail credits awarded to both sentences as agreed to in the
plea agreement.” ECF No. 1 at 7.
point after his sentencing, Plaintiff was transferred to
South Woods State Prison “where according to his
adjusted sentence based on ‘jail credits' his
maximum expiration of sentence was adjusted on or about June
1, 2012.” ECF No. 1 at 8. Approximately one year after
he arrived at South Woods State Prison in April 2012,
“Plaintiff noticed on his inmate monthly account
summary his maximum expiration of sentence was extended to
the year of 2018 prompting investigation into the application
of his ‘jail credits' awarded and earned as an
‘entitlement to time served.'” Id.
To investigate this discrepancy, Plaintiff filed a request
with the Administrative Director of the Classifications
Department for the Commissioner of the State of New Jersey.
Id. at 8.
received a certified response from the Classifications office
informing him that the sentencing judge had removed jail
credits as the Department of Corrections had suggested that
they were duplicative credits. Id. at 9. Plaintiff
asserts that this action excessively and unlawfully extended
his sentence, id., and was done without notice to
him or an opportunity to be heard. Plaintiff requested but
failed to receive any relief through his sentencing court,
and appealed to the New Jersey Superior Court's Appellate
Division, “where a judgment was granted to correct
sentence in favor of Plaintiff . . . to apply all jail
credits in accordance to jail time served.”
Id. at 10. Despite this, the sentencing court
apparently only applied a “partial” amount of the
jail credits, “promoting a second appeal to the New
Jersey Appellate Courts.” Id. at 11. According
to the Plaintiff, “after 2 yrs of unjust adjudication
attorney for the Cumberland County Public Defenders Miss
Vanessa Williams successfully had this drug court correct the
appellate ordered judgments of conviction” and
Plaintiff was finally released from prison two years after
his original release date of June 1, 2012. Id. at
11-12. Plaintiff was released on December 15, 2014.
Id. at 12.
Standard of Review
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), the defendant bears the burden of showing that no
claim has been presented. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that a pleading must set forth a
claim for relief which contains a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;
the complaint must provide the defendant with fair notice of
the claim. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual
allegations. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(per curiam). The issue in a motion to dismiss is whether the
plaintiff should be entitled to offer evidence to support the
claim, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail.
See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,
232 (3d Cir. 2008) (the Rule 8 pleading standard
“‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence
of' the necessary element.”); Nami v.
Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996).
onus is on the plaintiff to provide a well-drafted complaint
that alleges factual support for its claims. “While a
complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does
not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (alteration in original and internal citations
omitted). The court need not accept unsupported inferences,
Cal. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp.,
394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004), nor legal conclusions cast
as factual allegations, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
Legal conclusions without factual support are not entitled to
the assumption of truth. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not” satisfy the requirements of Rule
the court winnows the conclusory allegations from those
allegations supported by fact, which it accepts as true, the
court must engage in a common sense review of the claim to
determine whether it is plausible. This is a context-specific
task, for which the court should be guided by its judicial
experience. The court must dismiss the complaint if it fails
to allege enough facts “to state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A
“claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw a
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The complaint that shows that the pleader is entitled to
relief--or put another way, facially plausible--will survive
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2);
Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir.
Voluntary Dismissal of the Cumberland County Prosecutor and