Rahim R. Caldwell v. PLEASANTVILLE MUNICIPAL COURT, Pleasantville On Appeal from the United States…

BLD 303 -308 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2342
___________
RAHIM R. CALDWELL,
Appellant
v.
PLEASANTVILLE MUNICIPAL COURT,
Pleasantville
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-01591)
District Judge: Honorable Renée M. Bumb
____________________________________
________
No. 08-2343
___________
RAHIM R. CALDWELL,
Appellant
v.
VINELAND MUNICIPAL COURT;
CITY OF VINELAND
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-01592)
District Judge: Honorable Renée M. Bumb
____________________________________

-- 1 of 6 --

2
___________
No. 08-2344
___________
RAHIM R. CALDWELL,
Appellant
v.
VINELAND MUNICIPAL COURT;
CITY OF VINELAND
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-01593)
District Judge: Honorable Renée M. Bumb
________________________________
___________
No. 08-2345
___________
RAHIM R. CALDWELL,
Appellant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERRIFS DEPARTMENT;
CUMBERLAND COUNTY; VINELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CITY OF VINELAND
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-01594)
District Judge: Honorable Renée M. Bumb
____________________________________

-- 2 of 6 --

3
___________
No. 08-2346
___________
RAHIM R. CALDWELL,
Appellant
v.
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL COURT ATLANTIC COUNTY;
TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-01595)
District Judge: Honorable Renée M. Bumb
____________________________________
___________
No. 08-2347
___________
RAHIM R. CALDWELL,
Appellant
v.
VINELAND MUNICIPAL COURT;
CITY OF VINELAND
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-01596)
District Judge: Honorable Renée M. Bumb
_______________________________________________

-- 3 of 6 --

4
___________
No. 08-2348
___________
RAHIM R. CALDWELL,
Appellant
v.
VINELAND MUNICIPAL COURT;
CITY OF VINELAND
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-01597)
District Judge: Honorable Renée M. Bumb
_______________________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 25, 2008
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL AND SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed April 21, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Rahim Caldwell appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his seven civil rights
complaints. The details of Caldwell’s claims are set forth verbatim in the District Court’s
opinion and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, in Nos. 08-2342, 08-2343, 08-2344,
08-2346, 08-2347, and 08-2348, Caldwell alleged that several municipalities and

-- 4 of 6 --

1 The record as it now stands is not developed enough for an analysis of whether the
Municipal Courts, the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department, and the Vineland Police
Department are state or municipal agencies for the purposes of § 1983.
5
municipal courts violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by setting bail in
amounts that were higher than that allowed under state law and his rights under the
Fourth Amendment by issuing warrants without probable cause. In No. 08-2345,
Caldwell alleged that the police and sheriff’s departments illegally searched a location not
listed on a warrant and seized him. The District Court dismissed the complaints before
service for failure to state a claim, and Caldwell filed timely notices of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over
the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaints for failure to state a claim.
Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). The District Court was correct that
a municipality or local government unit cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
solely because it employs a tortfeasor unless the violation was caused by an official
policy or custom. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691
(1978). 1 However, a plaintiff whose complaint is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915 should be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint unless it would be
futile or inequitable to do so. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 110-11 (3d
Cir. 2002). The District Court did not give Caldwell an opportunity to amend, and we
cannot conclude that it would be inequitable or futile to allow Caldwell to amend his
complaints.

-- 5 of 6 --

6
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily vacate
the District Court’s orders and remand the matters to the District Court. See Third Circuit
I.O.P. 10.6. On remand, the District Court shall allow Caldwell the opportunity to amend
his complaints.

-- 6 of 6 --