Rashduni v. Dente

CLAUDE RASHDUNI, Plaintiff, v. P. DENTE (COP 1), THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,JOHN DOE1 (COP 3), JOHN DOE2 (COP4)GRZEGORZ KINAL (COP 2), PETER J. MELCHIONNE,LAURA MEZA, BARBARA COWEN, MARINE MANVELYAN,COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, MUNICIPAL COURT OF BERGEN COUNTY, Defendants.

Civ. No. 16-240 (KM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

July 26, 2016

OPINION

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

Claude Rashduni brings this "counterclaim" pro se alleging "trespass, and trespass on the case," but also states that the actions of defendants were "unconstitutional." I will interpret this as a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983").¹ It names Defendant Hon. Peter J. Melchionne, J.S.C., the judge presiding over Mr. Rashduni's child custody proceedings, as well as court personnel, Sheriff's Officers, the Municipal Court of Bergen County, Rashduni's ex-wife, and her lawyer. This case is a companion to Rashduni v. Melchionne, No. 15-8907, in which I am also filing an opinion today.

Defendants have moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. For the reasons expressed herein, the motions are granted.

I. BACKGROUND

For some time, proceedings have been proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, concerning the divorce of Mr. Rashduni and his ex-wife, Marine Manvelyan, and custody of their child, K.R. Judge Melchionne, the last judge to preside, has seemingly awarded custody to Manvelyan and ordered Rashduni to pay child support.

The amended complaint is quite difficult to follow. The allegations may be summarized as follows.

1. At a April 2, 2015, court appearance, defendants forced Rashduni to accept that sole custody of the child would be given to Manvelyan, with "unfounded proof and uncivilized barbaric process." The attached transcript excerpts demonstrate that the court had not yet made its determination. The judge did state that the proofs were pointing toward sole custody, and warned Rashduni that he could be jailed if he did not stop interrupting. (ECF no. 8 at 2-4, 16-21)

2. The court dismissed a counterclaim despite no counterclaim's having been filed. (ECF no. 8 at 4-5)

3. In December 2013 Manvelyan obtained a passport for the child without Rashduni's consent or knowledge. (ECF no. 8 at 5-7) This, believes Rashduni, was a step in a plan to kidnap the child. The passport was mentioned repeatedly at a December 2013 hearing.

4. Manvelyan has given false information about the child's enrollment in the New Jersey Family Care Plan, which would be inappropriate given Manvelyan's income level. Defendant Cowen, her lawyer, has allegedly known about or aided the misrepresentation. (ECF no. 8 at 7-8)

5. Manvelyan sought to dissolve the marriage five months after receiving her green card. She filed three bogus criminal charges against Rashduni, which were dismissed.

6. Attached to the complaint is an order of the state court, dated December 14, 2015. The order dismissed Rashduni's answer, counterclaim, and order to show cause, and stated that the matter would proceed by defaulton January 11, 2016. (ECF nol. 8 at 24) Also attached is a notice of proposed final judgment granting Manvelyan sole custody without visitation rights, restraining Rashduni from approaching Manvelyan or the child, returning passports and permitting Manvelyan to remove the child from the jurisdiction, awarding child support of $589 per week, and awarding attorney's fees and other relief. The outcome of the January 11, 2016 hearing is not stated.

The complaint alleges that this is a plan to kidnap the child while imprisoning Rashduni. It alleges that "it is unconstitutional to take a child from one person and transfer[] it to another person." (ECF no. 8 at 10)

Also alleged is that the judge wrongfully ordered the scanning of the deeds of two houses owned by Rashduni's mother. (ECF no. 8 at 11)

As relief, the complaint demands "Dismiss all Criminal charges in the Bergen County Municipal Court with a mandate from the federal court." (ECF no. 8 at 13) No supporting facts are stated. This seems to refer to a disorderly persons charge of contempt brought against Rashduni based on his disruptive behavior in court. (ECF no. 1-1)

The complaint demands that the child's passport be held by the State Department.

The complaint also seeks damages based on loss of reputation in the amount of "$15 million plus $50,000 multiplied by the number of days in constructive and actual imprisonment." (ECF no. 8 at 13)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

1. Rule 12(b)(1) Standard

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) may be raised at any time. Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424, 437-38 (D.N.J. 1999). Rule 12(b)(1) challenges are either facial or factual attacks. See 2 JAMES WM. MOORE, MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 12.30[4] (3d ed. 2007). The defendant may facially challenge subject matter jurisdiction by arguing that the complaint, on its face, does not allege sufficient grounds to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Iwanowa, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 438. Under this standard, a court assumes that the allegationsin the complaint are true, and may dismiss the complaint only if it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff will not be able to assert a colorable claim of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The jurisdictional arguments made here are based on the allegations of the complaint. Accordingly, the Court will take the allegations of the complaint as true. See Gould Elecs., Inc. v. U.S., 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000).

2. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The moving party bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated. Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must take all allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975); Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 1998); see also Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) ("reasonable inferences" principle not undermined by later Supreme Court Twombly case, infra).

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a) does not require that a complaint contain detailed factual allegations. Nevertheless, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, the factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a plaintiff's right to relief above a speculative level, such that it is "plausible on its face." See id. at 570; see also Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008). 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 misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). While "[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a'probability requirement' ... it asks for more than a sheer possibility." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009).

Where, as here, the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the complaint is "to be liberally construed," and, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). Nevertheless, it must meet some minimal standard. "While a litigant's pro se status requires a court to construe the allegations in the complaint liberally, a litigant is not absolved from complying with Twombly and the federal pleading requirements merely because s/he proceeds pro se." Thakar v. Tan, 372 Fed. App'x 325, 328 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

Section 1983 provides in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A. Claims against Judge Melchionne, Mezza, and the Court

Judge Melchionne, Laura Mezza, and the Superior Court, all named as defendants, have filed a motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated in my opinion filed in a related case today, the claims against Judge Melchionne are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, his non-amenability to suit as a "person" under § 1983, and absolute judicial immunity. Rashduni v. Melchionne, Civ. No. 15-8907. (A copy is attached for ease of reference.)

The Superior Court itself, as well as Laura Mezza, as Court Services Supervisor, are likewise shielded from suit as entities and officers of the State,for the reasons expressed in the Melchionne opinion. See Robinson v. New Jersey Mercer County Vicinage-Family Div., 514 Fed. App'x 146, 149 (3d Cir. 2013) (New Jersey county court was "clearly a part of the state of New Jersey," so "both the court itself and its employees in their official capacities were unconsenting state entities entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment") (citing Benn v. First Judicial Dist. Of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 240 (3d Cir. 2005)).²

Mezza, like the judge, is entitled to assert judicial immunity as to claims against her in her personal capacity. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25-27, 112 S. Ct. 358, 362-63 (1991) It is not clear precisely what Mezza is alleged to have done...