WASHINGTON v. MORRIS COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_________________________________________

ROBERT WASHINGTON, et al., :

Plaintiffs, : Civ. No. 20-20713 (KM) (ESK)

:

v. :

:

MORRIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, : OPINION

et al., :

Defendants. :

_________________________________________ :

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.

I. BACKGROUND

Pro se Plaintiff Robert Washington1, a resident of Tully House, seeks to commence a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself and co-Plaintiffs Deborah Jones-

Washington, Derrel Jones, Michael Washington, and Demetria McKnight against various Morris

County Prosecutor’s Office officials, Plaintiff’s attorneys, and the Superior Court judge who

presided over his criminal case. (DE 1.) Plaintiff alleges, in substance, false arrest and malicious

prosecution claims; specifically, that Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff’s rights by accusing

him and his family members and acquaintances of involvement in drug-related crimes and

pressuring them to plead guilty. (DEs 1, 5-7.) Plaintiff seeks an injunction “preventing defendants

[from] further initiat[ing] official misconduct” and monetary damages. (DE 1 at 4.) Plaintiff also

seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (DE 3.) For the reasons below, I will deny the IFP

application and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.

II. DISCUSSION

First, the IFP application, submitted on behalf of Robert only, is deficient. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(2) requires that a prisoner seeking to proceed IFP must, in addition to an affidavit of

poverty, “submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for

the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of

appeal.” Robert, who was confined at Bo Robinson Assessment Center between March 11 and

November 23, 2020 and Tully House thereafter, provides only an uncertified statement for only

August and September, 2020. (DE 1-2.) Accordingly, I will deny the IFP application.

1 Except as otherwise noted, I refer only to a singular Plaintiff in the body of this order because, as discussed below,

Robert Washington is the only individual who signed the Complaint and addenda and may not represent the others.

Even if I granted IFP status, the Complaint is also problematic. First, only Robert has signed

the Complaint and addenda, and apparently attempts to either represent or file suit on behalf of the

other Plaintiffs. “Although an individual may represent herself or himself pro se, a non-attorney

may not represent other parties in federal court.” Murray on behalf of Purnell v. City of

Philadelphia, 901 F.3d 169, 170 (3d Cir. 2018). Accordingly, I will dismiss all claims other than

Robert’s, without prejudice as to the other Plaintiffs’ right to bring their own timely actions should

they so choose.

Second, to the extent that Plaintiff essentially asserts a false arrest and conviction, § 1983

actions are not the proper vehicle for challenging a conviction, only for recovering damages after

the convictions have already been declared unlawful. In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held

that before a § 1983 plaintiff may “recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction

or sentence invalid,” he must first “prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct

appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus[.]” 512

U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). See also Bronowicz v. Allegheny Cty., 804 F.3d 338, 346 (3d Cir. 2015)

(“‘[A] prior criminal case must have been disposed of in a way that indicates the innocence of the

accused in order to satisfy the favorable termination element.’” (alteration in original) (quoting

Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 187 (3d Cir. 2009))). Absent prior invalidation, a state prisoner's

§ 1983 action is barred regardless of the type of relief sought. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74,

81–82 (2005).

“[W]hen the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiff’s

favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an action under § 1983 is appropriate.”

Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002). Conversely, whenever the challenge ultimately

attacks the “core of habeas' —the validity of the continued conviction or the fact or length of the

sentence—a challenge, however denominated and regardless of the relief sought, must be brought

by way of a habeas corpus petition. Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 541–42 (3d Cir. 2002).

Here, Plaintiff clearly challenges the validity of a conviction by asserting a conspiracy

against him to pursue charges despite Defendants’ knowledge of his innocence. The Complaint, as

supplemented by three addenda (DEs 5-7), alleges that Plaintiff was arrested on March 14, 2016 and

convicted of selling drugs in Dover, New Jersey upon “false evidence, false police reports, [and]

false press releases” and poorly represented by public defenders. (DE 1 at 3-4; DE 5 at 2.) Plaintiff

alleges that there is evidence showing him to be in a Supermarket in Randolph, New Jersey when

the alleged drug sale occurred. (DE 5 at 2.)

After the Complaint, Plaintiff filed four additional documents. The first is a series of pro se

requests to the Appellate Division referencing a 2019 appeal. (DE 4.) It is unclear how this relates

Plaintiff’s allegations. The second, characterized as an addendum to the complaint, is a copy of an

ethics complaint alleging a conspiracy between the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, New Jersey

State Police, New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, and Morris County Superior Court. (DE 5.)

The third, labeled a letter brief, provides additional details about the alleged harm to other Plaintiffs.

(DE 6.) The final filing is another addendum preemptively asserting that the judge presiding over

his criminal matter is not entitled to qualified immunity because the judge knowingly conspired

with the other defendants to deny Plaintiff drug court on numerous occasions, and sentenced him to

probation and later for a probation violation. (DE 7.)

The result of any subsequent criminal proceedings is unclear; the Complaint mentions only

that “[a]s of 2019, all plaintiffs have filed Post Conviction Relief petitions challenging the facts

surrounding this criminal case and complaints about the false convictions and ineffective assistance

of counsel[.]” (DE 1 at 3.) What is clear, however, is that Plaintiff’s complaint and addenda, as

currently written, appear to challenge numerous related convictions, implying that those convictions

have not been invalidated. Thus, a § 1983 action is not the proper vehicle to challenge them and this

Complaint must be dismissed. To the extent, however, that I do not know the outcome of the

criminal and related collateral proceedings, or that Plaintiff could conceivably still assert a related,

valid civil rights claim, this dismissal is without prejudice as to Plaintiff’s right to file a proper,

timely complaint, or a timely habeas petition. See, e.g., Allen v. New Jersey State Police, 974 F.3d

497, 502 (3d Cir. 2020) (discussing what constitutes a “favorable termination” for the purposes of

asserting a malicious prosecution claim).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, I will deny Plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice, dismiss the

Complaint without prejudice, and direct the Clerk of the Court to close the case. An appropriate

order follows.

DATED: 12/20/2021

/s/ Kevin McNulty

______________________________

KEVIN MCNULTY

United States District Judge