OKOGUN v. CREEGAN

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedApril 30, 2025
Docket3:22-cv-02563
StatusUnknown

This text of OKOGUN v. CREEGAN (OKOGUN v. CREEGAN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
OKOGUN v. CREEGAN, (D.N.J. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ENOMEN JOHN OKOGUN, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 22-2563 (MAS) (TJB) MEMORANDUM ORDER CAPTAIN KEVIN CREEGAN, ef al, Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Enomen John Okogun’s (“Plaintiff”) filing of his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) Because the Court granted Plaintiff's in forma pauperis (“IFP”) Application (ECF No. 7), the Court must screen his Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff filed his original complaint on April 29, 2022 (Compl., ECF No. 1), and attached his IFP Application (IFP Appl., ECF No. 1-3).! On August 11, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's IFP application and dismissed his original complaint because he failed to allege facts that connected in any meaningful way to his claims. (See generally Mem. Op., ECF No. 7.) The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint (see id.), which he did on September 18, 2023 (Am. Compl., ECF No. 11). Section 1915(e)(2) requires the Court to screen Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and to dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-Giii). When

' The Court initially denied Plaintiff's IFP Application on January 10, 2023 (ECF No. 3), and thereafter Plaintiff moved for reconsideration (ECF No. 4) and filed a Second IFP Application on January 23, 2023 on August 11, 2023 (Second IFP Appl., ECF No. 5).

evaluating a claim under § 1915(e)(2), the Court applies the same standard that governs a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure? 12(b)(6). Grayson v, Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112 (3d Cir. 2002). In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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). The Court construes pleadings filed by pro se plaintiffs liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than those filed by attorneys, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), but “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim,” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2019). Here, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. Ln short, the Amended Complaint is neither “simple, concise, [nor] direct.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). While the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff returned to the Court with an Amended Complaint that spans over 350 pages, including exhibits, compared to his original complaint, which was five pages. (Compare Am. Compl., with Compl.) In a similar case filed by Plaintiff, with a majority of the same facts, Okogun v. Trustees of Princeton University (“Okogun P’), the Third Circuit affirmed this Court’s dismissal of his complaint because it included irrelevant facts, anecdotes, and indecipherable claims; covered an unnecessarily long time period; and was “so voluminous and unfocused that it [wa]s impossible to identify what about [Plaintiff]’s encounters . . . could support any claim for relief regarding a violation of his state or federal constitutional rights.” 2024 WL 1427585, at *2 (3d Cir. Mar. 21, 2024).

All references to “Rule” or “Rules” hereinafter refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

As in Okogun I, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint unnecessarily spans 192 pages and includes an additional 174 pages of exhibits. (See generally Am. Compl.) The Amended Complaint includes irrelevant facts, various anecdotes, and background information from as early as 2014, approximately eight years before the original complaint was filed. (See id. {| 32-683.) It is within this Court’s discretion to dismiss “an excessively prolix and overlong complaint.” Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 93 (3d Cir. 2019). Courts have famously stated that “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried [in the record].” Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 67 n.7 (2024) (using the phrase in reference to plaintiff's burden to establish standing by setting forth specific facts); United States v. Morton, 993 F.3d 198, 204 n.10 (3d Cir, 2021) (using the phrase in reference to uncited references to the record on appeal); Singh v. Township of Weehawken, No. 15-3478, 2019 WL 13098595, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2019) (using the phrase in reference to making arguments) (“[T]his Court has frequently instructed parties that they bear the responsibility to comb the record and point the Court to the facts that support their arguments.” (citation omitted)). As such, the Court declines to “hunt” for relevant facts “buried” in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to support his allegations. The Court will afford Plaintiff one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint that complies with Rule 8. Such pleading should contain a short and plain statement limited to the necessary facts and must explain which specific facts support each cause of action. The Court highlights that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey’s Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants? may assist Plaintiff in filing a second amended complaint.

> Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants, http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/ProSeGuide. pdf.

IT IS, THEREFORE, on this 30th day of April 2025, ORDERED as follows: I. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within forty-five (45) days from entry of this Memorandum Order. 3, The Clerk is directed to affix a copy of the Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants to the entry of this Memorandum Order. MA df 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

P d | Guide f

| S L | C | Tt oa Beery a i 4 er ee ee ms! i Pe A ae ae ol

ae pot Fs ee ee a as ee ee os es i. eo = 4 □ BEeERuoEua. = Pry ee i Baad rae

This information is provided merely as a guide to Pro Se Litigants. You should not rely on this information alone. Moreover, any complaint may be subject to dismissal on a variety of grounds.

December 2024

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT DISTRICTOFNEWJERSEY IMPORTANTINFORMATION–PLEASEREADCAREFULLY INSTRUCTIONSFORFILINGACIVILACTIONBYANON-PRISONER __________________________________________________________ INSTRUCTIONSANDPROCEDURES CIVILCOMPLAINT–Acivilactioniscommencedbyfilingacomplaintwiththecourt.

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Kelley Mala v. Crown Bay Marina
704 F.3d 239 (Third Circuit, 2013)
Kareem Garrett v. Wexford Health
938 F.3d 69 (Third Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Nilda Morton
993 F.3d 198 (Third Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
OKOGUN v. CREEGAN, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okogun-v-creegan-njd-2025.