ENGLISH v. TAYLOR et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 10/15/2012. (drw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ARMANI COOK

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 10-2643 (JBS/AMD)

V.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

ERIC TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
DARRELL CRONE
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
JOSEPH D. D'AGOSTINO
Plaintiff,
V.
ERIC TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 10-1341 (JBS/AMD)

Civil No. 10-2740

(JBS/AMD)

DAVID ENGLISH
Plaintiff,
V.
ERIC TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 10-2854 (JBS/AMD)

NATHAN INGRAM
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR,

Civil No. 10-2439

(JBS/AMD)

Civil No. 10-2543

(JBS/AMD)

et al.,
Defendants.

BARRY LEWIS
Plaintiff,
V.
ERIC TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
MARK W. MILLERLINE
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 10-2741 (JBS/AMD)

DARRYL STOVE
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 10-3077 (JBS/AMD)

V.
ERIC TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:

Presently before the court are eight unopposed motions to
dismiss eight nearly identical complaints brought by pretrial
detainees who were confined, for varying periods of time in 2009
and 2010, in the Camden County Correctional Facility ("CCCF"). 1
The Court finds as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, individually allege a
number of identical claims relating to their confinement
conditions in CCCF against the County of Camden and County
officers, as well as Aramark, Inc. ("Aramark"), Aramark
Correctional Services LLC ("ACS") and ACS's Dietician Carey.

1 The pending motions to dismiss are: Cook v. Taylor, No.
10-2643 [Docket Item 8], Crone v. Taylor, No. 10-1341 [Docket
Item 19], D'Agostino v. Taylor, No. 10-2740 [Docket Item 13],
English v. Taylor, No. 10-2854 [Docket Item 14], Ingram v.
Taylor, No. 10-2439 [Docket Item 16], Lewis v. Taylor, No. 102543 [Docket Item 11], Millerline v. Taylor, No. 10-2741 [Docket
Item 17], and Stove v. Taylor, No. 10-3077 [Docket Item 11].
The cases were consolidated on July 6, 2010, but were
unconsolidated on February 6, 2012, when the Court was unable to
obtain pro bono counsel to represent all Plaintiffs jointly. See
e.g., Order, Cook v. Taylor, No. 10-2643 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2012). A
ninth nearly identical action has no pending motion to dismiss.
Green v. Taylor, No. 10-1191 (D.N.J. filed March 8, 2010). A
tenth nearly identical action brought by a prisoner, not a
pretrial detainee, alleges similar claims under the Eighth
Amendment, and will be considered separately. Kunst v. Taylor,
No. 10-1608 (D.N.J. filed Mar. 30, 2010).

2

Relevant to the present motions are only those claims against
Aramark, ACS and Dietician Carey alleging violations of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for serving meals in
an unsanitary manner and for failing to provide adequate calories
at meals. 2 Defendants Aramark, ACS and Dietician Carey have filed
motions to dismiss the counts against them for failure to state a
claim, because, they argue, Plaintiffs fail to allege facts
showing a violation of their Due Process rights related to the
food they were served while confined at the CCCF. For the reasons
explained below, the motions to dismiss will be granted.
2. The facts and procedural history common to these cases
were described in this Court's previous opinion, Simmons v.
Taylor, No. 10-1192, 2012 WL 3863792, at *1-*2 (D.N.J. Sept. 5,
2012), which dismissed identical claims against Aramark, ACS and
Dietician Carey. A copy of the Simmons opinion is attached hereto
as ADDendix A. In brief, these eight Plaintiffs allege that their

2 Seven of the eight cases also brought similar claims under
the Eighth Amendment, which this Court dismissed with prejudice,
because, as pretrial detainees, the Plaintiffs' rights are
protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth
Amendment. Cook v. Taylor, No. 10-2643 [Docket Item 2], Crone v.
Taylor, No. 10-1341 [Docket Item 3], D'Agostino v. Taylor, No.
10-2740 [Docket Item 2], English v. Taylor, No. 10-2854 [Docket
Item 5], Ingram v. Taylor, No. 10-2439 [Docket Item 16], and
Lewis v. Taylor, No. 10-2543 [Docket Item 2], Millerline v.
Taylor, No. 10-2741 [Docket Item 2]. In the eighth case,
Plaintiff Stove only brought claims under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Stove v. Taylor, No. 10-3077 [Docket Item 1].

3

food trays often had dirt, hair, dried food or "other foreign
objects" on them and that the trays were cracked, allowing
substances to collect along the cracks and emit odors
("Unsanitary Meal Service") . 3 [Compl. II a-c on 9.] The
Plaintiffs also allege that meals frequently differed from the
posted menus and that the substitutions provided too few calories
to the detainees and that Dietician Carey signed off on the
substitutions ("Failure to Provide Proper Caloric Intake").
[Compl. IT a-g on 9-11.] Each Plaintiff provides an example or
two of how the meals served differed from the meals listed on the
menus. One representative example: the menu described one meal as
including a hamburger patty on a bun with cheese and catsup, 3/4
cup of cottage fries, 1/2 cup of coleslaw, 1/2 cup of gelatin and
a slice of cake; the detainees actually received one hamburger
patty on a bun, six spoonfuls of mashed potatoes, two spoonfuls
of chopped cabbage ("dry"), and five spoonfuls of pudding. 4

The relevant factual allegations in these cases are
drafted with nearly identical language, paragraph numbering and
pagination. Where the complaints are not identical, and the
differences are significant, the Court will note the differences.
3

4 Plaintiffs Cook and Ingram describe this meal. Plaintiffs
Crone, D'Agostino and English describe similar substitutions: for
one meal, the menu listed two slices of bread, 4 oz of turkey, 1
cup scalloped potatoes, 1/2 cup tossed salad with 1/2 oz of lowfat dressing and a slice of cake; the detainees actually received
two slices of bread, two spoonfuls of shredded turkey meat with
sauce, two spoonfuls of mashed potatoes, one spoonful of shredded
cabbage with mayonnaise, four tortilla chips and a Nutri-Grain
cereal bar. [Compl. I g on 10.] Plaintiffs Lewis, Millerline and
Stove describe similar substitutions in their meals. [Id.]

4

[Compl. I g on 10.]
3. Plaintiffs assert generally that they suffered "serious
emotional and physical injuries" as well as "measurable monetary
damages" but do not allege facts supporting those conclusions.
[Compl. 1 30 on 13.] Plaintiffs do not allege facts that they
suffered damage or injury from the actions of the moving
Defendants.
4. Defendants now move to dismiss the claims against them.
See supra note 1. None of the Plaintiffs have filed opposition to
the motions to dismiss.
5. All of the factual pleadings in these eight cases, as
well as the legal assertions and claims against Defendants
Aramark, ACS and Dietician Carey are materially similar, if not
identical, to those in Simmons. Consequently, these cases raise
identical legal issues to those decided in that case. Because the
Court already conducted the relevant legal analysis in Simmons,
2012 WL 3863792, at *2-*4 [attached hereto as Appendix A], the
Court herein incorporates that analysis.
6. Plaintiffs' Complaints do not satisfy the applicable
standard for unconstitutional punishment under the Fourteenth
Amendment as announced in Stevenson v. Carro11,495 F.3d 62, 68
(3d Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Court will grant the motions to
dismiss.

5

7. The accompanying Orders will be entered.

04, is- 24/2,
Date

ROME B. SIMANDLE

th ief U.S. District Judge

A

.4;.

E

_

.,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CARLTON SIMMONS

•
•
Plaintiff,

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil No. 10-1192 (JBS/AMD)

V.
OPINION

ERIC TAYLOR, WARDEN, et al.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
Carlton Simmons
1317 Sheridan Street
Camden, NJ 08104
Plaintiff pro se
Matthew J. Behr, Esq.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
Woodland Falls Corporate Park
200 Lake Drive East, Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Counsel for Defendants Aramark Correctional Services, LLC,
Aramark, Inc., and Dietician Carey
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
I.

INTRODUCTION

This action is before the Court on the unopposed motion of
Defendants Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Aramark,

Inc., and

Dietician Carey to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them for
failure to state a claim.

[Docket Item 21.]

In this action,

Plaintiff Carlton Simmons, proceeding pro se, alleges that while
he was a pretrial detainee at the Camden County Correctional
Facility ("CCCF") in 2009 his constitutional rights were violated
by Defendants and other responsible state actors. In their

instant motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege
facts showing a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment Right to
Due Process related to the food he was served while he was
confined at the CCCF. As will be explained below, the Court
agrees that the specific treatment Plaintiff alleges was
committed by the moving Defendants does not amount to punishment
prior to the adjudication of guilt or treatment that otherwise
states a claim for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Court will consequently grant Defendants' motion to dismiss.

II. BACKGROUND
As this action is before the Court on a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, the Court takes as true all factual
allegations contained in the Complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff was held as a pretrial detainee
in the CCCF between at least July 10, 2009 and March 5, 2010.
Compl. $ 5. Plaintiff alleges that while he was there, the
facility was overcrowded. Id. Ti 21-24. Plaintiff alleges that
the overcrowding and management of the CCCF caused him several
kinds of injuries by several different parties. Id. 11 34-36.
As relates to the moving Defendants, Plaintiff alleges that he
was served meals in an unsanitary manner, including food served
on trays that were not clean ("Unsanitary Meal Service" 191 a-c on
9), and that the meals that Defendants prepared and served

2

contained inadequate calories. ("Failure to Provide Proper
Calorie Intake" TT a-g on 9-11).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that particular meals served
on November 25, 2009 and December 1, 2009 departed from the
posted menu that Defendant Dietician Carey had prepared and
signed. For example, on November 25, 2009, the advertised menu
stated that the meal would consist of two franks, two buns, 3/4
cup of ranch beans, 1/2 cup of coleslaw, 1/2 cup of tossed salad,
1/2 oz of low-fat dressing, 1/4 oz of mustard, and 1/2 cup of
vanilla pudding. Compl. 1 iv at 11. By contrast, the actual
lunch served (presumably to Plaintiff himself) on that day was:
two hot dogs, two buns, four pieces of dry cabbage leaves, three
spoonfuls of beans, and an apple. Id. at 1 iii.
Plaintiff does not allege any facts indicating that he
suffered any physical or psychological damage or injury from the
actions of the moving Defendants. However, he does allege,
generally, that he "suffered serious emotional and physical
injuries, and has suffered real and measurable monetary damages"
but does not allege facts supporting such conclusions. Id. 1 30
at 13. Plaintiff alleges that the treatment of Defendants
violated his rights under both the Eighth Amendment and the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 5, 2010. On May 25,
2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims,

3

concluding that because Plaintiff alleged he was a pretrial
detainee at the time of the conduct alleged, his rights are
protected under the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Eighth
Amendment. [Docket Item 7.]
Defendants have subsequently moved to dismiss, to which
Plaintiff has filed no opposition.

III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review

In order to give defendant fair notice, and to permit early
dismissal if the complained-of conduct does not provide adequate
grounds for the cause of action alleged, a complaint must allege,
in more than legal boilerplate, those facts about the conduct of
each defendant giving rise to liability. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and 11(b)
(3). These factual allegations must present a plausible basis
for relief (i.e., something more than the mere possibility of
legal misconduct). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681
(2009).
In its review of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court must "accept all factual
allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff." Phillips v. County of Allegheny,
515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Pinker v. Roche

4

Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2002)). The
assumption of truth does not apply, however, to legal conclusions
couched as factual allegations or to "[t]hreadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court's task, when
reviewing a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), is to "determine
whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show
that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief, so the
complaint must contain allegations beyond [merely claiming]
plaintiff's entitlement to relief." Fowler v. DPMC Shadyside,
578 F.3d 203, 210-211 (3d Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).
When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
"[w]here the plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the court has an
obligation to construe the complaint liberally." Giles v.
Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972)). The Court will,
therefore, construe facts alleged, wherever possible, in a manner
favorable to Plaintiff, but even so, the Complaint must allege
sufficient facts from which a plausible claim to relief can be
shown.

B.

Discussion

In his Complaint, Plaintiff brings four Counts against the
moving Defendants: Counts III, IV, V and VI. Counts III and IV

5

are against Defendant Aramark, and Counts V and VI are against
Defendants ACS and "Dietician", presumably Defendant Carey. The
Court previously dismissed Counts III and V, which seek relief
under the Eighth Amendment, in its sua sponte screening. [Docket
Item 7.] Therefore, the sole remaining Counts against the moving
Defendants are Counts IV and VI, which allege identical conduct,
and claim that such conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment's
Due Process Clause.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged facts
sufficient to support a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment,
because he has not alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that
any of his meals were unconstitutionally deficient in calories,
or that the sanitation was sufficiently lacking as to violate the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Court agrees.
The Court has previously stated that when a pretrial
detainee such as Plaintiff raises a Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process challenge, the Court looks to the standard set forth in
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), i.e., whether the
conditions of confinement complained of amounted to punishment
prior to the adjudication of guilt. See Acevedo v. CFG Health
Systems Staff, Civ. No. 10-5103, 2010 WL 4703774 *4 (D.N.J. Nov.
12, 2010).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits
punishment of a pretrial detainee prior to an adjudication of

6

guilt in accordance with due process of law. See Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 535. The Third Circuit summarized the
conditions of confinement standard under Bell as follows:
[A] particular measure amounts to punishment
when there is a showing of express intent to
punish on the part of detention facility
officials, when the restriction or condition
is not rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive government purpose, or when the
restriction is excessive in light of that
purpose.
Stevenson v. Carroll, 495 F.3d 62, 68 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Thus, the Third Circuit has "distilled the Supreme Court's
teachings in Bell into a two-part test. We must ask, first,
whether any legitimate purposes are served by these conditions,
and second, whether these conditions are rationally related to
these purposes." Hubbard v. Taylor, 538 F.3d 229, 232 (3d Cir.
2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover,
the Fourteenth Amendment standard of unconstitutional punishment,
like the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishments
standard, contains both an objective component and a subjective
component:
Unconstitutional punishment typically includes
both objective and subjective components. As
the Supreme Court explained in Wilson v.
Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 . . . (1991), the
objective component requires an inquiry into
whether "the depriviation [was] sufficiently
serious" and the subjective component asks
whether "the officials act[ed] with a
sufficiently culpable state of mind[.]" Id. at
7

298 . . . . The Supreme Court did not abandon
this bipartite analysis in Bell, but rather
allowed for an inference of mens rea where the
restriction is arbitrary or purposeless, or
where the restriction is excessive, even if it
would accomplish a legitimate governmental
objective.
Stevenson, 495 F.3d at 68.
Under the Due Process Clause, prison officials must satisfy
inmates' "basic human needs - e.g., food, clothing, shelter,
medical care, and reasonable safety." Helling v. McKinney, 509
U.S. 25, 32 (1993). The Constitution requires "that prisoners be
served 'nutritionally adequate food that is prepared and served
under conditions which do not present an immediate danger to the
health and well being of the inmates who consume it' [and] under
certain circumstances a substantial deprivation of food may well
be recognized as being of constitutional dimension." Robles v.
Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1983). "[A] prisoner's diet
must provide adequate nutrition, but prison officials cannot be
held liable under the [constitutional standard] unless the
prisoner shows both an objectively serious risk of harm and that
the officials knew about it and could have prevented it but did
not." Mays v. Sprinoborn, 575 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted).
The allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint do not satisfy the
objective component. While Plaintiff alleges that the food he
was served on two different days departed from the posted menu,

8

and that on unspecified days the trays that the food was served
on were not clean, these allegations do not meet the objective
component described in Stevenson.
As to his caloric intake, the alleged deviations from the
menu on the two specified days in late 2009 do not raise a
plausible inference that Defendants caused Plaintiff to suffer
from malnutrition as a result of having, for example, a "Nutri
Grain bar" substituted for a slice of cake. See Compl. 1 48.
Plaintiff's allegations do not permit the Court to conclude that
he was offered an insufficient number of calories even for a
single day, as the only specific allegations relate to single
meals in the day, and Plaintiff's conclusory statements that his
diet was insufficient is not accorded the presumption of truth
under Iqbal.
As to the alleged unsanitary conditions, Plaintiff alleges
that dirt, hair, foreign objects and dried food, on occasion,
ended up on Plaintiff's tray, and that the trays smelled bad.
See Compl. at "Unsanitary Meal Service" ¶T a-c on 9. These
allegations, likewise, do not rise to the threshold of the
objective component of the standard announced in Stevenson.
Plaintiff does not allege that he or any other inmate became ill
or otherwise suffered any injury from the preparation of the
food. Indeed, Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to
plausibly show that such conditions occurred frequently or rarely

9

during the time of his confinement at CCCF. Accordingly, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the
moving Defendants in Counts IV and VI of the Complaint.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant

Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts IV and VI of the Complaint
for failure to state a claim. The accompanying Order will be
entered.

September 5, 2012
Date

si Jerome B. Simandle

JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
-

CARLTON SIMMONS
Plaintiff,
V

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil No. 10-1192 (JBS/AMD)

.

ORDER

ERIC TAYLOR, WARDEN, et al.,

.

Defendants.

This matter having come before the Court upon the motion to
dismiss of Defendants Aramark Correctional Services, LLC,
Aramark, Inc., and Di etician Carey [Docket Item 211; the Court
having considered the submissions of the Defendants in support
thereof and Plaintiff having submitted no opposition thereto; for
the reasons stated in the Opinion of today's date; and for good
cause shown;
IT IS this

5th

day of

September

,

2012 hereby

ORDERED that Defendants' motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; the
Court shall dismiss Counts IV and VI from the Complaint, and
Defendants Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Aramark, Inc. and
Dietician Carey shall be terminated from the action.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge