Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0931-25 PHILIP HAHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,1 and PARAMUS POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Respondents. _____________________________ Argued October 29, 2026 – Decided November 9, 2026 Before Judges DeAlmeida and Chase. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County. Philip Hahn, appellant, argued the cause on appellant's behalf. Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; 1 Improperly pled as New Bridge Medical Center. Christopher Weber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, on the brief). Joseph M. Freda argued the cause for respondent Bergen Regional Medical Center (Schenck Price Smith & King, LLP, attorneys; William J. Buckley, of counsel and on the brief; Catherine Popso O'Hern, on the brief). PER CURIAM Self-represented plaintiff Philip Hahn appeals from an October 9, 2025 Law Division order barring his filing of a complaint under Rosenblum,2 because the complaint failed to state a claim. We affirm. In 2012, the Bergen Vicinage Assignment Judge entered a pre-filing injunction under Rosenblum requiring an assignment judge to review any lawsuit plaintiff submitted before service and determine whether the suit had merit. Since entry of the Rosenblum order, plaintiff has attempted to file more than 118 matters. In one matter alone, he attempted to file more than ninety- eight submissions. In September 2025, plaintiff sought to file a complaint in Bergen County against the State of New Jersey, Bergen Regional Medical Center (BRMC), and the Paramus Police Department (PPD), arising from an incident on February 17, 2 Rosenblum v. Borough of Closter, 333 N.J. Super. 385 (App. Div. 2000). A-0931-25 2 2024. Plaintiff had previously attempted to file a complaint based on the same incident in March 2024, but the Bergen County trial court declined to accept it. Plaintiff's complaint alleged three members of the PPD took him to BRMC without legal justification; he was held there for approximately ten hours; and he was "assaulted via a blood test." On October 9, 2025, the trial court denied plaintiff's request to file the complaint. The court found the complaint alleged no specific facts supporting a cause of action and failed to identify any harm plaintiff suffered. Instead, the complaint offered only bare assertions. The court refunded plaintiff's filing fee. We review orders restraining litigants from filing frivolous papers for abuse of discretion. Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39, 51 (App. Div. 2010). However, our review of a trial court's order dismissing a complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim is de novo. Hornor v. Upper Freehold Reg'l Bd. of Educ., 263 N.J. 120, 140 (2026); see Baskin v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC, 246 N.J. 157, 171 (2021). We examine "'the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint,' giving the plaintiff the benefit of 'every reasonable inference of fact.'" Baskin, 246 N.J. at 171 (internal citation omitted). In determining whether dismissal is warranted, we do not consider at this stage whether plaintiff can prove those allegations. A-0931-25 3 Plaintiff argues the denial violated his right to a jury trial. He cites several United States Supreme Court decisions and federal statutes and contends the court failed to follow what he views as controlling authority. He repeatedly relies on 18 U.S.C. § 242 for the proposition a public official acting under color of law may not deprive a person of constitutional rights. Both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions protect the right to a jury trial. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 9. But a party in a civil action has a right to a jury trial only if a statute or the state constitution provides one. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co. v. Lajara, 222 N.J. 129, 141 (2015) (quoting In re Env't Ins. Declaratory Judgment Actions, 149 N.J. 278, 292 (1997)). Plaintiff incorrectly assumes he was automatically entitled to a jury trial here. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires courts to preserve meaningful access to civil courts for legitimate claims. Rosenblum, 333 N.J. Super. at 389-90; see Brown v. Grabowski, 922 F.2d 1097, 1113 (3d Cir. 1990). Thus, a court may not completely bar filing a claim without judicial review of its merits. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. at 48. But due process does not prevent a court from enjoining a self-represented litigant who repeatedly files frivolous suits. Rosenblum, 333 N.J. Super. at 391. In Rosenblum, we determined although courts must search a complaint carefully for a viable cause A-0931-25 4 of action, an assignment judge may prevent filing when the record shows a pattern of frivolous litigation. Id. at 391-92; see N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(b); see also R. 1:4-8(d). Rule 4:5-2 requires a complaint to include both a claim for relief and a statement of the facts supporting that claim. Bauer v. Nesbitt, 198 N.J. 601, 610 (2009). A cause of action not pleaded in the complaint "cannot spring to life for the first time in an appellate court opinion" because the complaint's basic function is to "fairly apprise an adverse party of the claims and issues to be raised at trial." Ibid. (quoting Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 121 N.J. 69, 75 (1990)) (internal quotations omitted). A complaint that pleads neither facts nor a claim for relief is deficient: Except as may be more specifically provided by these rules in respect of specific actions, a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim, shall contain a statement of the facts on which the claim is based, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims entitlement. [R. 4:5-2 (emphasis added).] Here, the trial court did not dismiss a properly filed complaint. Instead, under the 2012 Rosenblum order, it denied plaintiff's request to file the proposed action because the complaint failed to state a claim. The complaint offered no A-0931-25 5 factual support beyond conclusory assertions. It did not allege a substantive, legally cognizable claim. Nor did it provide context, identify a cause of action, or state facts that would entitle plaintiff to relief. Affirmed. A-0931-25 6