United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER, U.S.D.J.
Thomas Wallace, is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Previously, this Court granted
plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
time, this Court must screen the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A to determine
whether the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or whether it
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
suit. For the following reasons, the complaint will be
dismissed without prejudice.
allegations of the complaint will be construed as true for
purposes of this screening opinion. Plaintiff names two
defendants in his complaint: (1) Det. Anthony Fontana -
Burlington Township Police Department; and (2) Lisa M.
Commentucci - Burlington County Prosecutor's Office.
entirety of plaintiff's factual allegations are as
(1) Prosecutor conduct constitutes grand jury misconduct date
6.14.17 6.15.17; (2) prosecutor criminal mis-prosecutions -
date 6.14.17 6.15.17; (3) prosecutor forgery committed,
falseifying [sic] documents date 6.6.17; (4) prosecutor
purposely knowingly, recklessly, negligently misuse of power
and violation of both my civil rights and constitution
malicious prosecution cause me mental stress and angunt [sic]
violates my constitutional rights to grand jury indictment.
The grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that
a defendant will be indicted constituted a violation of D.C.
Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3 at my trial Dated: 6.14.17
6.15.17; (5) Det. Anthony Fontana committed perjury at trial
date 6.14.17; (6) Det. Anthony Fontana violated both my civil
and constitutional rights date 6.14.17, 2.8.16, 4.25.16,
5.3.16; (7) Det. Anthony Fontana withheld evidence; (8) Det.
Anthony Fontana violated official misconduct and abuse of
power Dated: 6.14.17.
(ECF No. 1 at 5-6).
requests monetary damages, that an indictment be dismissed
and that Fontana and Commentucci be fired from their jobs.
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
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. see 28 U.S.C. §
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane
v. Seana, 506 Fed.Appx. 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing
Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir.
2000)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 Fed.Appx. 230, 232
(3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1));
Courteau v. United States, 287 Fed.Appx. 159, 162
(3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). That
standard is set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007), as explicated by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. To survive the court's
screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must
allege ‘sufficient factual matter' to show that the
claim is facially plausible. See Fowler v. UPMC
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). “[A]
pleading that offers ‘labels or 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).
se pleadings, as always, will be liberally construed.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
Nevertheless, “pro se litigants still must
allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a
claim.” Mala v. Crown ...