Kydere Wilson v. Borough of Pennsauken

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS KYDERE WILSON, Plaintiff, Civil Action Vv. | No, 25-2595 (KMW-EAP) BOROUGH OF PENNSAUKEN, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND Defendant, ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Kydere Wilson’s (“Plaintiff”) Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11); and THE COURT NOTING that Plaintiff's previous Complaints (ECF Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9) were all dismissed (ECF Nos. 3, 8, and 10) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),! which requires □□ the Court to dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or otherwise seeks relief from an immune defendant; and WHEREAS, the Court permitted Plaintiff to amend her Complaint to address the deficiencies identified in its Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No. 10).

While the Court has the obligation to construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, it does not require the Court to credit bald assertions or legal conclusions: “[p]ro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Griffin v. State Dep’t of Human Servs,, No, 18-14697, 2019 WL 3369783 at *2 (D.N.JI. Jul. 26, 2019) (internal citation omitted).

“Even a pro se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if the allegations set forth lerhe legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(e)(2)\(Byii is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane □□ Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012). by the plaintiff cannot be construed as supplying facts to support a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” /d. (internal citations omitted). Further, pro se plaintiffs are not absolved “of the need to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Davis v. Forsdahi, No. 23-2313, 2025 WL 1118629 at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 15, 2025); and WHEREAS, the Court notes that many of the same defects remain in Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) with regard to her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, which fail because “failure to prosecute” or “failure to file criminal charges” is not cognizable under any federal law.

See Rowan v. Staiger, No. 9-275, 2009 WL 1405494 at *3 (D.N.J. May 19, 2009) (“This Court finds that any such claim alleging failure to prosecute or file criminal charges is not cognizable under any federal law, specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); see also Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 85-87, (1981); Linda RS. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, (1973) (“a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non[-|prosecution of another”), Similarly, in Messner v. Weingarten, No. 19-15752, 2024 WL 4224836 at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2024), the plaintiff was unable bring her claim because there is no cause of action to request the prosecution of another. See also Fakla v. Borough of Middlesex, No. 22-04126, 2023 WL 4197168 at *3 (D.N.J. Jun, 27, 2023) “courts have long held that civil rights plaintiff may not seek relief in civil litigation in the form of an order directing the criminal prosecution of some third part[y].”); and WHEREAS, the Defendant named in Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint is the Borough of Pennsauken Police Department, and in New Jersey, a police department is not a separate entity from the municipality, it is “merely an administrative arm of the local municipality” rendering it an improper defendant that cannot be sued in conjunction with the municipality. Padilla v. Twp. of Cherry Hill, 110 F. App’x 272, 278 (3d Cur. 2004); Foster vy. Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 23-1613 (BRM) (MAR), 2023 WL 6366563, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2023). As such, the Borough of Pennsauken Police Department is not a proper Defendant and the Fifth Amended Complaint must be dismissed as to Defendant Police Department.

Therefore, the Court must dismiss this matter in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY on this Nay of March, 2026, ORDERED A, Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

B. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. ae oS ge cee KAREN M. WILLIAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE