RUIZ v. STILLS

Filing 20

OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 3/7/2012. (TH, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RAYMOND RUIZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN STILLS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 09-4259 (RBK)

OPINION

APPEARANCES:
RAYMOND RUIZ, Plaintiff pro se
654220/496035E
Northern State Prison
P.O. Box 2300
Newark, New Jersey, 07114
DOUGLAS M. LONG, ESQ.
LONG, MARMERO & ASSOCIATES, LLP
44 Euclid Street
Woodbury, New Jersey 08096
Counsel for Defendants
KUGLER, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the motion of
defendant, Cumberland County Jail, to dismiss the Complaint,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and 12(b)(6).
17).

(Docket entry no.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to defendant’s

motion.

This matter is being considered on the papers pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78.

For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s

motion will be granted.

I.

BACKGROUND

On or about August 20, 2009, plaintiff, Raymond Ruiz
(“Ruiz”), filed a civil rights Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, against defendants: Kevin Stills, Correctional Officer and
the Cumberland County Jail.

(Complaint, Caption).

In his

Complaint, Ruiz alleged that, on July 6, 2009, around 12:45 p.m.
to 1:15 p.m., he was collecting trays during lock down when
another inmate started to question why there was a lock down, and
Ruiz said to “drop a request slip or drop a grievance.”
Defendant, Correction Officer (“CO”) Kevin Stills, told plaintiff
to “shut up” and “do your job,” to which plaintiff replied that
he was doing his job.

Ruiz alleged that he started talking to

himself about how difficult it was to work under such pressure.
He then passed CO Stills with the tray cart, and Stills allegedly
assaulted Ruiz by grabbing plaintiff from behind, slamming
plaintiff against a wall, and using his forearm to choke
plaintiff with such force that plaintiff almost passed out.
Stills also yelled abusive language at Ruiz.

Ruiz asked Stills

why he choked him and Stills allegedly pulled out pepper spray.
Ruiz states that he tried to talk Stills down, but Stills got in
a fighting stance and told plaintiff to “rock.”
Ruiz further alleged that Stills then rushed Ruiz, threw
Ruiz against the wall and punched him.

Ruiz tried to hold

Stills, but other correctional officers arrived and forced

2

plaintiff to the ground.
twisted.

Ruiz was handcuffed and his arm was

He was taken to the sergeant’s desk and then to the

nurse for care of his bruises.

Ruiz was then taken to pre-

detention lock-up, where he stayed until July 16, 2009, about
nine days.
to him.

During this time, no disciplinary charges were issued

However, after he complained about detention and the new

cell where he has to sleep on the floor, he was served with
disciplinary charges on July 19, 2009, for refusing to obey an
order of a staff member, fighting, and conduct which disrupts or
interferes with the security or orderly running of the
correctional facility.
for July 21, 2009.

His disciplinary hearing was scheduled

After plaintiff gave his statement, the

hearing officer told him to forget about it and gave an order
that plaintiff be returned to H-block without lock-down.
Ruiz asks for injunctive relief in his Complaint, namely,
that the defendant be terminated or put on probation.

He also

asks for an unspecified amount in monetary compensation for his
injuries.
On December 22, 2009, this Court issued an Opinion and Order
that dismissed with prejudice Ruiz’s claim asserting denial of
disciplinary due process for failure to state a cognizable claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1);
however, Ruiz’s claim asserting the use of excessive force in
violation of his Fourteenth and/or Eighth Amendment rights was

3

allowed to proceed.

(Docket entry nos. 2 and 3).

On July 6,

2011, counsel for defendants filed a notice of appearance on
behalf of defendant Stills.

(Docket entry no. 15).

Also on July

6, 2011, counsel for defendant Cumberland County Jail filed a
motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and
12(b)(6).

(Docket entry no. 17).

In its motion, defendant Cumberland County Jail alleges that
the Complaint may be properly dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m)
because service of process has never been issued or effectuated
as to defendant Cumberland County Jail.1

In addition, defendant

Cumberland County Jail contend that the Complaint is devoid of
any allegation upon which relief may be granted as to defendant,
and therefore, the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff has not responded to the motion filed by defendant
Cumberland County Jail.
II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Standard on Motion to Dismiss
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court is required to accept as true
all allegations in the Complaint and all reasonable inferences
that can be drawn therefrom, and to view them in the light most

1

Summons was issued and service of the summons and
Complaint was executed on or about January 29, 2010, with respect
to defendant Stills. (Docket entry nos. 4 and 6).
4

favorable to the non-moving party.

See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009);
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955,
167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &
Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 (3d Cir. 1994).

A complaint should be

dismissed only if the alleged facts, taken as true, fail to state
a claim.

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950.

The question is whether the

claimant can prove any set of facts consistent with his or her
allegations that will entitle him or her to relief, not whether
that person will ultimately prevail.

Semerenko v. Cendant Corp.,

223 F.3d 165, 173 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, Forbes v.
Semerenko, 531 U.S. 1149 (2001).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court revised the standard for summary
dismissal of a Complaint that fails to state a claim.

The issue

before the Supreme Court was whether Iqbal’s civil rights
complaint adequately alleged defendants’ personal involvement in
discriminatory decisions regarding Iqbal’s treatment during
detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center which, if true,
violated his constitutional rights.

Id.

The Court examined Rule

8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides
that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

5

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).2

Citing its recent opinion in Twombly,

for the proposition that “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do,’ “Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), the Supreme Court identified two
working principles underlying the failure to state a claim
standard:
First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to
legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice ... . Rule 8 ... does not unlock the doors of
discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than
conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a
plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not
permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not
“show[n]”-“that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-1950 (citations omitted).
The Court further explained that
a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin
by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a
complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.
When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they
plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.

2

Rule 8(d)(1) provides that “[e]ach allegation must be
simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d).
6

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950.
Thus, to prevent a summary dismissal, civil complaints must
now allege “sufficient factual matter” to show that a claim is
facially plausible.

This then “allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”

Id. at 1948.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in

Iqbal emphasizes that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the
allegations of his complaint are plausible.

Id. at 1949-50; see

also Twombly, 505 U.S. at 555, & n.3; Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,
578 F.3d 203, 210(3d Cir. 2009).
Consequently, the Third Circuit observed that Iqbal provides
the “final nail-in-the-coffin for the ‘no set of facts’ standard”
set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957),3 that
applied to federal complaints before Twombly.
at 210.

Fowler, 578 F.3d

The Third Circuit now requires that a district court

must conduct the two-part analysis set forth in Iqbal when
presented with a motion to dismiss:
First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be
separated. The District Court must accept all of the

3

In Conley, as stated above, a district court was
permitted to summarily dismiss a complaint for failure to state a
claim only if “it appear[ed] beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle
him to relief. Id., 355 U.S. at 45-46. Under this “no set of
facts” standard, a complaint could effectively survive a motion
to dismiss so long as it contained a bare recitation of the
claim’s legal elements.
7

complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard
any legal conclusions. [Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50].
Second, a District Court must then determine whether the
facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that
the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief.” [Id.] In
other words, a complaint must do more than allege the
plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to
“show” such an entitlement with its facts. See Phillips,
515 F.3d at 234-35. As the Supreme Court instructed in
Iqbal, “[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the
court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,
the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show [n]’-‘that
the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, [129 S.Ct. at
1949-50]. This “plausibility” determination will be “a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.
Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-211.
Thus, for a complaint to survive dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6), it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’”
570).

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
In determining the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court

must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint
as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,

234 (3d Cir. 2008).

But, “the tenet that a court must accept as

true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is
inapplicable to legal conclusions [;][t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

Additionally, in evaluating a plaintiff’s claims, generally “a
court looks only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its
8

attachments without reference to other parts of the record.”
Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261
(3d Cir. 1994).
B.

Dismissal For Failure to State a Claim
Here, defendant Cumberland County Jail argues that the

Complaint fails to allege any facts against it sufficient to
support a claim for relief.

Defendant observes that the

Complaint appears to bring claims against two defendants,
Cumberland County Jail and CO Stills, in the caption of the
pleading, but no where else in the Complaint does Ruiz make any
substantive factual allegations against Cumberland County Jail.
Specifically, in ¶¶ 3 (Parties), 4 (Statement of Claims) and 5
(Relief) of the Complaint, Ruiz refers only to defendant Stills
and makes no mention of Cumberland County Jail as a defendant.
Thus, the only place where CMS is referenced is in the caption of
the Complaint.
Consequently, the Complaint must be dismissed, in its
entirety, as against defendant Cumberland County Jail, for
failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).4
Moreover, THIS Court finds that defendant Cumberland County Jail
must be dismissed from this lawsuit because it is not a “person”

4

Because this Complaint will be dismissed for failure to
state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), this Court need
not reach defendant’s alternative argument for dismissal pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
9

subject to liability under § 1983.

See Grabow v. Southern State

Correctional Facility, 726 F. Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J.
1989)(correctional facility is not a person under § 1983).;
Mitchell v. Chester County Farms Prison, 426 F. Supp. 271, 274
(D.C. Pa. 1976).
III.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the motion by
defendant Cumberland County Jail to dismiss the Complaint,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), (Docket entry no. 17), will be
granted, and this action will be dismissed with prejudice, in its
entirety, with respect to defendant, Cumberland County Jail.

An

appropriate order follows.
s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
Dated: March 7, 2012

10