CORBETT v. ORELLANA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TERRENCE CORBETT, Civil Action No. 24-10023 (SDW) (MAH) Plaintiff, WHEREAS OPINION v. CHRISTOPHER ORELLANA, July 28, 2025 ELIZABETH SINISI, Defendants. THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Defendants Christopher Orellana and Elizabeth Sinisi’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”), (D.E. 8), Plaintiff Terrence Corbett’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint, (D.E. 1); and WHEREAS on November 16, 2021, the North Bergen Police Department (“NBPD”) received a report of a local robbery and dispatched to the scene. (D.E. 8-2 at 4–5.) At the scene, law enforcement spoke with the victim, who stated that an “[a]proximately 6 foot tall heavy set [,] dark skinned male wearing a black jacket, gray hooded[] sweatshirt, [and] dark colored knit cap” had approached him from behind, displayed a black handgun, and asked the victim to turn over his wallet and phone. (Id.) North Bergen Police Detective Christopher Orellana assumed the investigation, and using the help of closed-circuit television (“CCTV”) cameras and surveillance cameras on local private residences, identified the suspect’s address. (D.E. 8-2 at 8–9.) Then, Detective Orellana used a law enforcement database to assess whether the individuals residing at that particular address matched the victim’s description of the perpetrator. (D.E. 8-2 at 10); and WHEREAS on November 19, 2021, the NBPD arrested Plaintiff and charged him with robbery, unlawful possession of a weapon, and using an imitation firearm with unlawful purpose. (D.E. 8-2 at 15.) Plaintiff was then transferred to the Hudson County Jail. (Id.) That same day, Officer Elizabeth Sinisi conducted a photo array with the victim. (D.E. 8-2 at 13.) Officer Sinisi marched through the NBPD photo array questionnaire, ensuring the victim understood it. (Id.) Once presented with the photo array, the victim selected Plaintiff’s photograph. (Id.); and WHEREAS on July 25, 2023, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery subject to the No Early Release Act (“NERA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-7.2. (D.E. 8-2 at 20, 26.) On January 17, 2025, Plaintiff was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. (D.E. 8-2 at 28); and WHEREAS Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 23, 2024 asserting due process violations under Section 1983 resultant from the NBPD’s handling of the investigation and photo array. (D.E. 1 at 2, 5–6.) On February 4, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (D.E. 8.) Defendants’ Motion is unopposed;1 and WHEREAS in screening a complaint, a court may sua sponte raise a defect with the statute of limitations where it is apparent on the face of the complaint. Rogers v. Perez, No. 25-1215, 2025 WL 847848 , at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2025) (citing Johnstone v. United States, 980 F. Supp. 148, 154 (E.D. Pa. 1997)). The personal-injury law of the state where the alleged harm occurred determines the amount of time a claimant has to file their § 1983 suit, with New Jersey giving § 1983 claimants two years. Coello v. DiLeo, 43 F.4th 346 , 352 (3d Cir. 2022). Under federal law, “a § 1983 claim ordinarily accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of her injury.” 1 This Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s letter submitted on May 30, 2025—over three months past the deadline for his opposition. See L. Civ. R. 7.1(e) (“The Court may reject any brief or other paper not filed within the time specified.”). Id. Here, Plaintiff’s claims accrued “at the time of [his] criminal prosecution,” in 2021. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as time barred. See Coello, 43 F.4th at 352 (dismissing the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims as time-barred given that her criminal prosecution occurred two years before she brought her federal case); WHEREAS notwithstanding, assuming Plaintiff’s Complaint had been timely filed, this Court is required to screen his complaint and sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. Dec. 13, 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)); and WHEREAS in deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court is “required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences in the facts alleged in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff].” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Worldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc., 343 F.3d 651, 653 (3d Cir. 2003)). A plaintiff’s “obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 231 (alteration in original) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, “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. 2013); and WHEREAS Plaintiff challenges his conviction by attacking the underlying actions taken by Defendants in connection with their investigation of the November 16, 2021 robbery. Plaintiff takes issue with the use of a photo array and claims Defendants’ statement that the robbery victim identified Plaintiff as the perpetrator constituted lies made under oath. (D.E. 1 at 5–6.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Sinisi misquoted the victim, who, according to Plaintiff, never stated that photograph number five identified Plaintiff as the perpetrator. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that, contrary to N.J. Attorney General Guidelines, Defendant Orellana “coerced the victim” to make the positive identification. (Id.) Lastly, Plaintiff additionally alleges that Defendant Orellana lied in his affidavit of probable cause (id.); and WHEREAS “[t]o state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States[] and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981)). However, when a state prisoner seeks damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” the plaintiff “must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal . . . or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 486–87 (1994). If a judgement in the plaintiff’s favor would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. at 487 . WHEREAS Plaintiff is currently serving the sentence resulting from his guilty plea and his Complaint does not contain any indication as to whether his “conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” See id. Given the nature of the relief sought by Plaintiff, his failure to make such a showing in his Complaint requires that this Court dismiss this case. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87; therefore Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as it is time-barred by the statute of limitations. An appropriate order follows. ___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____ SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J. Orig: Clerk cc: Parties Michael A. Hammer, U.S.M.J.