COLE v. COULTER

District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided August 18, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-13662·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CURTIS COLE, Case No. 25–cv–13662–ESK–EAP Plaintiff,

v. OPINION AND ORDER ANDREW COULTER, et al., Defendants.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon pro se plaintiff Curtis Cole’s filing of an amended complaint (Amended Complaint) (ECF No. 4) and second application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 4–2); and the Court finding, 1. On July 23, 2025, the Court received plaintiff’s complaint (Complaint) (ECF No. 1) and first IFP application (ECF No. 1–1). While the first IFP application was granted, the Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of facial plausibility and failure to satisfy the pleading standard. (ECF No. 3.) On August 13, 2025, plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) and a second IFP application (ECF No. 4–2). Since plaintiff has already been awarded IFP relief in this action, the Court need not consider plaintiff's renewed application to proceed IFP. 2. The Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical to the Complaint, fails to remedy the deficiencies the Court previously noted. (See ECF No. 3.) The Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently plead how defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Beyond conclusory statements indicating that defendants falsely arrested plaintiff (ECF No. 4 pp. 4, 5), no facts are asserted upon which relief “is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 635 (3d Cir. 1995) (noting that the proper inquiry for a false arrest claim is “whether the arresting officers had probable cause to believe the person arrested had committed the offense”). Accordingly, IT IS on this 18th day of August 2025 ORDERED that: 1. The Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by September 19, 2025 addressing the deficiencies outlined above. 2. This action shall remain closed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff by regular mail. /s/ Edward S. Kiel EDWARD S. KIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COLE v. COULTER, (D.N.J. 2025).

COLE v. COULTER (COLE v. COULTER) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)