United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Theodore Robinson, No. 41659 Plaintiff Pro Se
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.
Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the claims against the
Cumberland County Prosecutor and the Prosecutor's Office,
and the Court granted a motion to dismiss as to the remaining
defendants because they were not amenable to suit under
§ 1983. Plaintiff has since filed an Amended Complaint,
which he brings against the Cumberland County
Prosecutor's Office, the Cumberland County Prosecutor
Jennifer Webb McRae, and assistant prosecutor Walter Schulz.
ECF No. 18.
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which is ripe for adjudication. ECF No.
21. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the Motion. For the
reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion and
dismiss the Amended Complaint, with leave to amend granted.
Albert Theodore Robinson is presently housed in a treatment
program at Hansen House, in Galloway, New Jersey, and was
previously incarcerated at the Cumberland County Jail in
Bridgeton, New Jersey. According to the Amended Complaint, as a
result of certain state criminal charges, Plaintiff entered
into an agreement with Defendants Prosecutor Jennifer Webb
McRae, Walter Schulz, and the Cumberland County
Prosecutor's Office for a negotiated term of
imprisonment, including an eight-year aggregated term
comprised of 2 four-year consecutive sentences with an
additional three-year flat concurrent sentence for a total
eight-year sentence, and a jail credit agreement of 1, 095
days, 25 gap credits, both of which are to be subtracted from
the four year sentences. ECF No. 18 at 1; 33-35; 42.
Plaintiff's maximum expiration of sentence including
projected work and good time credits was on or about June 1,
year after Plaintiff arrived at South Woods State Prison in
April 2012, Plaintiff noticed on his account statement that
his maximum expiration of sentence was extended to 2018,
which prompted him to investigate the application of his jail
credits with the classifications department for the
commissioner of the State of New Jersey. Id. at 2.
He received a certified response from that office informing
him that the sentencing judge had removed jail credits as the
Department of Corrections suggested that they were duplicate
then filed an appeal to the New Jersey Superior Court's
Appellate Division for “the unlawful conspired removal
of jail credit which extended his sentence from 2012 to
2018.” Id. at 3. It appears this appeal was
filed in 2012 and oral argument in the appeal was held on
February 5, 2013. See id. at 42. The Appellate
Division remanded for reconsideration of the jail credits and
the concurrent application of the three-year sentence for
Indictment No. 11-07-622. Id. at 3; 42 (remand order
filed Feb. 8, 2013). Plaintiff alleges that on remand, the
Defendants held a hearing without the notice or presence of
Plaintiff, which caused him undue stress because they only
applied “a partial of what the order commanded.”
Id. at 3.
result of receiving only partial relief, he filed a second
appeal to the Appellate Division some time in 2013.
Id. at 4. During the pendency of the appeal, it
appears that Plaintiff's counsel negotiated with the
attorney representing the New Jersey Attorney General's
Office to agree to a remand for reconsideration and
application of all jail credits for all indictments, which is
reflected in the transcript of the appeal proceedings and the
remand order, dated July 28, 2014. See Id. at 45-50.
After the second remand, Plaintiff's jail credits were
recalculated and correctly applied as intended in the plea
agreement. With all credits applied to his sentence, he was
released on December 15, 2014. Id. at 4.
his claims for relief, Plaintiff alleges that the
“Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of his
constitutional rights while acting under color of state law,
” because the Plaintiff and Defendants had a verbal and
written agreement that Defendants unlawfully withdrew, which
caused Plaintiff harm. Id. Plaintiff requests
monetary relief and explains that as a result of the
Defendants' actions, he suffered cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, that he was
wrongfully incarcerated in violation of his Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that he was falsely
imprisoned and prosecuted maliciously. Id. at 5.
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