United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Michael A. Shipp United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Sanders has filed an Amended Complaint
asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Am.
Compl., ECF No. 19.) The Court will now review the Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) 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 such relief. Additionally
pending before the Court is Plaintiffs third Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order ("Motion") against the
New Jersey State Parole Board ("Parole Board").
(Mot., Apr. 22, 2019, ECF No. 20.) For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's claims against
the Parole Board with prejudice and deny the Motion.
about April 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint asserting
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Parole
Board and several individually named defendants. (Compl., ECF
No. 1.) This Court screened the Complaint, dismissed the
claims against the individual defendants without prejudice
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, and dismissed the claims against the Parole Board
with prejudice as it is not amenable to suit under §
1983. (Op. 3- 7, Sept. 19, 2018, ECF No. 11.) In the same
Opinion, the Court denied Plaintiffs first Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction.
(See Id. at 7; Mot., Aug. 13, 2018, ECF No. 9.)
about October 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction ("Second
Motion"). (Mot, Oct. 24, 2018, ECF No. 14.) This Court
denied Plaintiffs motion without prejudice as Plaintiff could
not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. (Op.
2-4, Apr. 9, 2019, ECF No. 17.) The Court advised Plaintiff
that in order for the Court to appropriately determine the
merits of Plaintiff s allegations, Plaintiff needed to
provide an amended complaint "laying out all the
relevant facts, defendants, and claims for relief."
(Id., at 3.)
about April 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint,
in which he asserts claims against the Parole Board for false
imprisonment and violation of his due process rights. (Am.
Compl. 2-3, ECF No. 19.) According to Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff was sentenced to a 14-month term of imprisonment
for a violation of his Parole Supervision for Life
("PSL"). (See id., at 3.) Plaintiff
appears to assert that the proper procedures were not
followed in imposing this sentence and further alleges that
the Parole Board "found [him] guilty of a crime"
that was unsupported by evidence. (Id.)
same day he filed the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a
third Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against the
Parole Board. (Mot., Apr. 22, 2019, ECF No. 20.) The Motion
is devoid of any supporting factual allegations or legal
argument. (See id.)
The Amended Complaint
only defendant named in the Amended Complaint is the Parole
Board. In this Court's prior screening opinion,
Plaintiffs claims against the Parole Board were dismissed
with prejudice because the Parole Board is not a person
within the meaning of § 1983 and is thus not subject to
liability. (See Op. 4, Sept. 19, 2018 (citing
Madden v. N.J. Sane Parole Bd., 438 F.2d 1189');">438 F.2d 1189, ] 190
(3d Cir. 1971)). Plaintiff, therefore, cannot proceed with
any claim against the Parole Board. The Court will once again
dismiss Plaintiffs claims against the Parole Board with
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Court will also deny Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order against the Parole Board. The standard for
granting a temporary restraining order is the same as that
for a preliminary injunction. Nutrasweet Co. v. Vit-Mar
Enters., Inc., 112 F.3d 689, 693 (3d Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, a party seeking a temporary restraining order
"must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) that [he] will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction
is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not
result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4)
that the public interest favors such relief." Kos
Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir.
2004) (citing Allegheny Energym Inc. v. DQE, Inc.,
171 F.3d 153, 158 (3d Cir. 1999)). "A Court will
consider all four factors, but the first two are
essential.'' Leddy v. N. Valley Reg'l High
Sch. Dist, No. 17-5245, 2017 WL 3923291, at *7 (D.N.J.
Sept. 5, 2017). Plaintiffs Motion fails on the first prong.
Plaintiff has provided this Court with no facts on which it
could find a likelihood of success on the merits. As this
Court has noted, the Parole Board is not a "person"
under § 1983 and therefore is not subject to liability.
(See Op. 4, Sept. 19. 2018.) The Court cannot
determine the merits of Plaintiff s overall allegations
because he has failed to present any plausible claim for
relief against a lawful defendant. Accordingly, the Motion is
denied as Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he is entitled
to a temporary restraining order.
reasons set forth above, the Court dismisses with prejudice
Plaintiffs claims against the Parole Board, as set forth in
the Amended Complaint, and denies Plaintiff's Motion for
a Temporary Restraining Order. ...