Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-17-2006
Orama v. New Jersey
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1003
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Orama v. New Jersey" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 570.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/570
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 06-1003
________________
HECTOR ORAMA,
Appellant
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPT
MORRIS CTY, BOARD OF SOCIAL
SERVICES 340 W. HANOVER,
MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY;
DEPARTMENT OF MORRIS COUNTY
________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-05270)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 21, 2006
BEFORE: RENDELL, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed August 17, 2006)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
Hector Orama appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
I.
Orama filed a complaint against the Morris County Board of Social Services, now
known as the Morris County Office of Temporary Assistance (“MCOTA”), captioned as
an action for “false imprisonment, violation of my civil rights, discrimination, legal
malpractice, post traumatic tension disorder for spending time in jail.” Complaint dated
10/28/2004. MCOTA filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court granted the motion, and also
granted Orama leave to file an amended complaint. Orama filed two amended
complaints, and MCOTA filed another motion to dismiss or alternatively a motion for
summary judgment. The District granted the second motion to dismiss, again finding that
Orama had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District
Court's grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465,
470 (3d Cir. 2003). We accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Id.
Collectively, Orama’s multiple complaints allege (1) that MCOTA failed to
properly investigate a child support case, resulting in his false imprisonment, post-
2
traumatic stress, and police abuse when arrested on July 21, 1999 for failure to pay child
support; (2) that he submitted to genetic testing on July 29, 1999 and the DNA test results
received August 24, 1999 excluded Orama as the father; (3) that the child support case
against Orama was vacated in October 1999, his driver’s license was restored in
November 1999, and he was reimbursed for prior child support payments; (4) MCOTA
abandoned him by “leaving [him] homeless in the street”, failing to provide mental help,
and failing to provide him “with everything [he] needed”; and (5) discrimination and
violation of civil rights. Complaint dated 10/28/2004; Supplemental Appendix of
Appellee (hereinafter “Supp. Appdx.”) at Ma-12 to 31 (amended complaints).1
Construing Orama’s pro se complaint liberally, Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229,
234 (3d Cir. 2004), we find that he is attempting to raise civil rights claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Orama essentially argues that his constitutional rights were violated when
MCOTA failed to investigate or determine paternity prior to the child support order
and/or the arrest warrant being issued. To state a claim against a county or its agency
under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege a policy or custom promulgated by that body’s
officers that directed or caused a constitutional deprivation. Marran v. Marran, 376 F.3d
143, 156 (3d Cir. 2004). Assuming, arguendo, that Orama has properly alleged a
constitutional violation, he has not alleged a policy or custom of MCOTA that led to that
violation.
1
Despite the caption naming the State of New Jersey as a defendant, Orama has made
clear that he was not suing the state. See Supp. Appdx. at Ma-12.
3
As to Orama’s other allegations that MCOTA left him homeless and failed to
provide him with mental help and other assistance, we find that these vague allegations
fail to satisfy the notice pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which
requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Alston, 363 F.3d at 232-33 (citations omitted).
Accordingly, Orama has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
and we therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Orama’s complaint.
4