United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCNULTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dashaun Jamil Jackson, is presently detained at the Union
County Jail in Elizabeth New Jersey. He commenced this action
pro se by filing a civil rights complaint, under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, on December 21, 2018, at which time he
paid the requisite filing fee in full. (DE 1.) The Court now
undertakes an initial screening of the complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
Jackson lists as defendants Judge William Daniels of the New
Jersey Superior Court, Union County, and Michael A. Monahan,
the acting prosecutor of Union County. He makes clear that he
is alleging a violation of his right to counsel under the
Sixth Amendment, though the circumstances of the alleged
violation are not clear from the complaint. The facts section
of the form complaint reads, in full,
My son on 11/13/2018 was told by Judge Daniels that he must
have an attorney, and that he claimed that he didnt received
his affidavit that was mailed certified and received by him
on 10/16/2018. Stating that my son was representing himself
in propria persona (natural person) and claiming his common
law rights. Salina Burton (10/01/2018& 11/13/2018 and
Sonya Jackson Bey (11/13/2018) was in the courtroom and saw
and heard eveything that happened. Also the court transcripts
is evidence. Please see attachment in detail.
(DE 1 ¶ IV.D). The Court's copy of the complaint has
no attachment. Mr. Jackson seeks as relief $100, 000 from
each defendant, as well as $5000 per day since June 27, 2018.
It seems that he also seeks the dismissal and expungement of
all charges against him and his immediate release from the
Union County Jail.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. 104-134,
§§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (Apr. 26,
1996) ("PLRA"), district courts must review
prisoner complaints when the prisoner seeks redress against a
governmental employee or entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Under the PLRA, the term prisoner applies to "any person
incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of,
convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for,
violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of
parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary
program." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c). The PLRA directs
district courts to sua sponte dismiss prisoner claims that
are frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is the same
as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Courteau v. United
States, 287 Fed.Appx. 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2008). Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must include
"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). The Supreme Court has explained that, "[t]o
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell All. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)); see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d
203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). "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."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Fair Wind
Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d
Cir. 2014). "A pleading that offers 'labels and
conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'"
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555).
pleadings, as always, will be liberally construed. See
Raines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Glunk v.
Noone, 689 Fed.Appx. 137, 139 (3d Cir. 2017).
Nevertheless, "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).
plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights.
That section provides,
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial
officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory
relief was unavailable.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege, first, the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and
second, that the alleged deprivation was committed or caused
by a person acting under color of state law. See Harvey
v. Plains Twp. Police Dep't,635 ...