United States District Court, D. New Jersey
DARYL W. WYNDER, Plaintiff,
TROOPER WOMACK, et al., Defendants.
B. KUGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff, Daryl W. Wynder's counseled
motion to reopen the case and proposed amended complaint
(“amended complaint”) (ECF No. 10). Initially,
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action, pro se,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,  and the
Court dismissed the complaint after screening for failure to
state a claim. (ECF Nos. 8 and 9). At this time, this Court
must screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) 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
suit. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss with
prejudice Plaintiffs kidnapping claims, dismiss without
prejudice the remainder of the amended complaint, and deny
Plaintiff s motion to reopen.
Court will construe the allegations in the amended complaint
as true for the purpose of this Opinion. Further, since the
parties are intimately familiar with the facts of this case,
and because the Court reviewed the background of this action
in its earlier Opinion, the Court will only articulate those
facts necessary to address the motion before the Court. In
his amended complaint, Plaintiff names only Officers Womack
and Norton as Defendants in this action.
September 7, 2016, Defendant Womack pulled over
Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff was out on parole
supervision at that time, on an unrelated offense. Defendant
Womack claimed that he smelled old burnt marijuana emanating
from Plaintiff's vehicle. Defendant Womack then searched
some parts of the vehicle but did not find any marijuana or
Defendants Womack and Norton searched the remainder of the
vehicle, found a gun in the engine compartment, and charged
Plaintiff with various weapons charges. The State presented
the charges before a grand jury, which ultimately did not
indict Plaintiff, resulting in a dismissal of the charges.
Court noted in its prior Opinion, it is unclear exactly what
transpired next. It appears that Plaintiff was detained or
incarcerated as a result of the weapons charges. Then, on or
about November 27, 2017, Plaintiff appeared before members of
the New Jersey State Parole Board, who denied parole and gave
Plaintiff a future eligibility date of twenty-seven months,
due to the weapons charges. As a result, Plaintiff was
detained or incarcerated from September 7, 2016, until May 7,
filed his initial complaint in December of 2017, and the
Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
(ECF Nos. 8, 9). Plaintiff now brings a counseled amended
complaint, setting forth racial profiling, due process, false
imprisonment, false arrest, and kidnapping claims against
Defendants Womack and Norton.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
courts must review complaints in civil actions in which a
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). District courts may 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 Id. According 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)).
survive sua sponte 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). “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 [alleged]
misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights guaranteed under the United
States Constitution. To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a
plaintiff must allege two things: first, a violation of a
right under the Constitution, and second, that a
“person” acting under color of state law
committed the violation. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988); Piecknick v. Com. of Pa., 36 F.3d
1250, 1255-56 (3d. Cir. 1994)).