2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-28-2010 

# S urf M o ore v

. S t at e of N J P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1775

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S ur f M oor e v

. S t at e of N J " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1116. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/11161

AL D- 2 2 5 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1775

___________ SURF M OO RE, A ppel l ant v . STATE OF N EW J ERSEY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 04595) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n , Jr.

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J une 17, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O A N D SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 28, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant , Sur f M oor e, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai nt as l egal l y fr i vol ous pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . Forthe r eas ons2

s t at ed her ei n, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yvaca t e and r emand. In S ep tem b er 2009, M oor e fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey chal l engi ng a fi ne i m pos ed under N ew J er s ey l aw . A l t hough t he c o m p lain t is v a g u e a n d c o n f u sin g , it a p p e a rs th a t M o o re a lleg e d a d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n in resp o n se to an arrest fo ll o w ing h is fail u re to p aya f ine. H o w ev er, M o o re p rov ided the c o u rt w i t h onl yt hes e mi ni m al fac t s i n hi s compl ai ntand ci t ed verbat i m 28 U . S. C . § 1343, 28 U .S .C . § 2 4 6 2 , the F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, an d th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. B e f

o re d ire c tly quot i ng eac h of the above - m ent i oneds t a tu t e s a n dc o n s t i tu t i o n a l a me n d me n t s , M oor e as s er t ed t w o m aj orcl ai m s : 1) t he N ew J er s ey s t atut e i s vague a nd uncert ai n; and 2) the N ew J er s ey s t atut e i s i n confl i ctw i t h a fe der al s t atut e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntas fr i vol ous pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons : 1) M oor e fa i l ed to p ro v id e a “ sh o rt a n d p lain sta tem e n t o f th e c laim sh o w in g th a t th e p le a d e r is e n tit led to r el i ef” i n acc or dance w i t h Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( a) ( 2) ; and 2) he fai l ed t o s t at e “s uffi ci entfac tual m at t er ” t o s how t hatanypot ent i al cl ai m s ar e faci al l y pl aus i bl e. See A s hcr oftv. I qbal , 129 S . C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 8 -4 9 (2 0 0 9 ). M o o re f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. W e h av e juri sd ict ion o v er this ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . B ec au se M o o re h a s b e e n g ra n ted in f

o rm a p a u p e ris s tatu s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 , w e re v iew th is ap p ea l f orpos s i bl e di s m i s s al pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . A n appea l m us tbe di s m i s s ed und e r § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) i f i t h a s n o a r g u a b l e b a s i s i n l a w o r f a c t . Se e Nei t z ke v. W ill iam s, 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). W e m a y tak e su m m a ry a c tio n o n a n a p p e a l if it p re se n ts3

n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n . S e e 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 . W hen the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s es a compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a claim under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tm us tal l ow the l i t i gantl eave t o amend hi s compl ai nt u n le s s a n ya m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e in e q u ita b le o r f u tile . S e e G ra y s o n v . M a yv ie w S ta te H o s p ., 2 9 3 F . 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H ere , the D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yco n clud ed that M o o re’s com p lai n tfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m , buti tfai l ed t o offe rM oor e an opportuni t yt o fi l e an a m e n d e d c o m p lain t in o rd e r to c lar if yh is a lleg a tio n s. S e e id .; se e a lso P h ill ip s v . C o u n ty of A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 231- 36 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( cl ar i fy i ng t hatt h e p l eadi ng s t andar ds u n d e r R u les 8 & 1 2 (b )(6 ) re q u ire th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m u st g iv e a p lain tiff th e o p p o rtu n ity t o a me n d h e rc o mp l a i n tp r i o rt o d i s mi s s a l , u n l e s s a me n d me n two u l d b e f u t i l e ) . Wh i l e we a g re e th a t M o o re ’s p lea d in g s f a iled to e s ta b lish su f

f icie n t f a c tu a l b a c k g ro u n d to a sc e rta in w hethera bas i s fort he cl ai m s exi s t , an am ended com pl ai nt pr ovi di ng addi t i onal det ai l s m ay r e v e a l i n f

o r m a t i o n t h a tw i l l a l l o w th e c o u r tt o d e t e r m i n e a b a s i s f o rMo o r e ’ s c l a i m s . We th e re f o re c o n c lu d e th a t, w ith o u t a f in d in g o f f u til ity , the D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld u p h o ld its o b lig a tio n to a llo w M o o re to f ile a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. A c c o rd in g ly , b e c a u se th e re is n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n p re se n ted , w e w ill su m m a rily vaca t e and r e ma n d t h i s a p p e a l wi t h i n s t ru c t i o n s t o th e Di s t r i c tCou r tt o g r a n tM o o r e l e a ve t o amend hi s compl ai nt . See 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4 & I . O . P. 10. 6.