Opinion
Case No. 2:19-cv-13400 (BRM)
12-09-2020
DANIEL AZCONA, Plaintiff, v. P.O. RUBEN MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
THIS MATTER is opened to the Court by pro se Plaintiff Daniel Azcona ("Plaintiff"), a pre-trial detainee confined at the Middlesex County Adult Correctional Center in New Brunswick, New Jersey, upon the filing of Amended Complaint raising claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 8-2.) Based on his affidavit of indigence (ECF No. 8-8), the Court previously granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered the Clerk of the Court to file the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9).
Plaintiff was detained at the jail at the time he initially filed his Complaint, however, since that time, it appears he has been released. (See ECF No. 10.) --------
Federal law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to dismiss any claim if the claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court has screened the Amended Complaint and determined that Plaintiff's claims for false arrest/imprisonment and illegal search shall proceed against Defendants Officer Ruben Martinez and Sergeant Antonio Dominguez. However, his claim against the Carteret Police Department is dismissed with prejudice as the proper defendant for a § 1983 claim is the municipality itself, not the police department. See Jackson v. City of Erie Police Dep't, 570 F. App'x 112, 114 (3d Cir. 2014) ("We further agree with the District Court that the police department was not a proper party to this action. Although local governmental units may constitute 'persons' against whom suit may be lodged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a city police department is a governmental sub-unit that is not distinct from the municipality of which it is a part.") (citation omitted). Even if the Court broadly construed the City of Carteret as a defendant, such claims would nevertheless still be dismissed without prejudice. Municipalities and other local governments can be sued directly under § 1983 where the deprivation resulted from an official policy or custom. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, Plaintiff pleads no facts to suggest any alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights resulted from a policy or custom of the municipality; accordingly the Court can only assume he named the City due solely to its employment of the officers, which is insufficient to create liability. Id. at 691 (finding that while a municipality may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it cannot be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior).
Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,
IT IS on this 9th day of December 2020,
ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims for false arrest/imprisonment shall PROCEED against Defendants Officer Ruben Martinez and Sergeant Antonio Dominguez; Plaintiff's claim for illegal search against Defendant Dominguez shall also PROCEED; any intended § 1983 claim against the Carteret Police Department is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; any intended § 1983 claim against the City of Carteret is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and it is further
ORDERED that, the Clerk shall mail to Plaintiff a transmittal letter explaining the procedure for completing United States Marshal ("Marshal") 285 Forms ("USM-285 Forms"); and it is further
ORDERED that, once the Marshal receives the USM-285 Forms from Plaintiff and the Marshal so alerts the Clerk, the Clerk shall issue summons in connection with each USM-285 Form that has been submitted by Plaintiff, and the Marshal shall serve summons, the Complaint and this Order to the address specified on each USM-285 Form, with all costs of service advanced by the United States; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve a responsive pleading within the time specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve Plaintiff with copies of this Order via regular mail.
/s/ Brian R . Martinotti
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE