ROCKEMORE v. CITY OF CAMDEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TYRONE P. ROCKEMORE,

No. 1:23-cv-1718-NLH-EAP

Plaintiff,

v. OPINION and ORDER

CITY OF CAMDEN,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES:

TYRONE ROCKEMORE

2021 SOUTH 9TH STREET

CAMDEN, NJ 08104

Appearing pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Tyrone Rockemore, appearing pro se,

filed a Complaint against the City of Camden arising out of

injuries he sustained from unnamed, third parties who allegedly

stabbed him on July 19, 2019 and an application to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”); and

WHEREAS, on May 18, 2023, having reviewed the allegations

in the Complaint as well as Plaintiff’s IFP application, this

Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application, instructed the Clerk

to file Plaintiff’s Complaint, and dismissed the Complaint

without prejudice, permitting Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint; and

WHEREAS, in its May 18, 2023 Opinion and Order this Court

dismissed the Complaint for “failing to identify a basis for

this Court’s jurisdiction and failing to state a specific legal

basis and sufficient facts to support a plausible claim for

relief” (ECF 6 at 5); and

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023, Plaintiff requested an extension

of time to file his amended complaint (ECF 7), which this Court

granted, allowing Plaintiff until August 26, 2023 to file (ECF

8); and

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint (ECF 9); and

WHEREAS, the screening provisions of the IFP statute

require a federal court to dismiss an action sua sponte if,

among other things, the action is frivolous or malicious, or if

it fails to comply with the proper pleading standards, see 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448,

452 (3d Cir. 2013); Martin v. U.S. Department of Homeland

Security, 2017 WL 3783702, at *1 (D.N.J. August 30, 2017)

(“Federal law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff’s

Complaint for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to

dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit.”);

WHEREAS, on June 30, 2023, Defendant advised of its

intention to file a Motion to Dismiss and requested a pre-motion

conference (ECF 10); and

WHEREAS, this Court entered an Order on July 7, 2023

denying Defendant’s request for a conference, and staying any

responsive pleading from Defendant pending this Court’s

screening of the Amended Complaint (ECF 11) in light of the

Court’s statutory obligation to screen the proposed Amended

Complaint; and

WHEREAS, pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and

all reasonable latitude must be afforded the pro se litigant,

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), but pro se litigants

“must still plead the essential elements of [their] claim and

[are] not excused from conforming to the standard rules of civil

procedure,” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)

(“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary

civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes

by those who proceed without counsel.”); Sykes v. Blockbuster

Video, 205 F. App’x 961, 963 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding that pro se

plaintiffs are expected to comply with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint reiterates that he

was attacked on July 19, 2019, that “the city police department,

the prosecutor[‘]s office & court system failed to protect [his]

person, liberty & property as a citizen, tax payer, elderly & a

qualified disabled resident.” (ECF 9 at 2–3); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleges that only one of the

perpetrators of the attack was apprehended, and this individual

“died prior to sentencing” (Id. at 3); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff “seek[s] both punitive & compensatory

damages” (Id.); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff avers that “this Court has jurisdiction

of the subject matter because of the public entities within the

city blatantly failed by their insistent non-compliance, neglect

& disregard” (Id. at 4);

WHEREAS, Plaintiff references Article III of the

Constitution as well as the Eleventh Amendment (Id.); and

WHEREAS, neither Article III nor the Eleventh Amendment of

the Constitution provide support for Plaintiff’s suit;

WHEREAS, Article III of the Constitution provides federal

courts can hear “all cases, in law and equity, arising under

this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States . . . .”

Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “[t]he district

courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States.”;

WHEREAS, Article III does not provide the basis for an

independent claim, but rather permits plaintiffs to bring cases

that are premised on other portions of the Constitution or

federal statutes that do create actionable rights;

WHEREAS, the Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he

judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to

extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted

against one of the United States by citizens of another state,

or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”; and

WHEREAS, the Eleventh Amendment does not permit an

independent cause of action, but rather is a restriction on the

Court’s power to hear certain claims against the United States;

and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not refer to

any other Constitutional provision or statute;

WHEREAS, this Court noted in its May 18, 2023 Opinion and

Order that Plaintiff alleged the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments as the basis for federal question jurisdiction;

however, the original Complaint did not include any allegations

setting forth how Defendant violated these constitutional

provisions;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff does not provide any further allegations

in support of an Eight or Fourteenth Amendment violation in his

Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does

not establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and

because Plaintiff does not point to any particular

Constitutional provision or federal law that Defendant violated

Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim as required by Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); and

WHEREAS, this Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity

to amend his complaint in order to state a specific legal basis

and supplement with additional facts to support a plausible

claim for relief; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not point to

any legal basis for his claim nor does he provide supplemental

facts to support his initial Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment

violation allegations, and therefore Plaintiff has not stated a

claim upon which relief may be granted; and

WHEREAS, the Court noting that neither the federal

constitution nor any federal statute provides a generalized

private right of action against a municipality for crimes

committed by one citizen against another or places on a

municipality the obligation to prevent all crime;

THEREFORE,

IT IS on this 26th day of July, 2023

ORDERED that this case be, and the same hereby is,

DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, in the

alternative, for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1), (b)(6), and (h)(3); and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of

this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail; and it is

further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter as

closed.

s/ Noel L. Hillman

At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.