WHITE v. TAYLOR et al

Filing 69

OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/14/14. (js)

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

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

KASHIEF WHITE,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 10-5485 (JBS/AMD)
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, et al.,
OPINION
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
Mr. Kashief White
116 Blackwood Clementon Rd.
Apt. G-304
Clemonton, NJ 08021
Plaintiff Pro Se
Anne E. Walters, Esq.
Office of County Counsel
Courthouse, 14th Floor
520 Market Street
Camden, NJ 08102
Attorney for Defendants Warden Eric Taylor, Deputy Warden
Christopher Fossler, Deputy Warden Anthony Pizzaro, Rodney
Greco, Camden County and Camden County Freeholders
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
I.

Introduction
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Kashief

White’s motion to file an amended complaint.1 [Docket Item 63.]
Plaintiff alleges he suffered from inadequate nutrition and

1
There are also two pending motions for summary judgment.
[Docket Item 66 & 68.]

constitutionally deficient conditions at the Camden County
Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) in Camden, N.J. He now seeks to
amend his complaint against the Camden County Defendants,2 adding
official and individual capacity claims against the individual
County Defendants, adding factual allegations in support of his
claims, and adding a prayer for injunctive relief.
For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the
motion to amend on the grounds of undue delay, prejudice to
Defendants, and futility.
II. Background
A. Facts
The background of this case has been discussed at length in
previous opinions, which are incorporated herein. See White v.
Taylor, No. 10-5485, 2013 WL 4595885, at *1-*2 (D.N.J. Aug. 28,
2013), ECF No. 54; White v. Taylor, No. 10-5485, 2013 WL
1412300, at *1-*2 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2013), ECF No. 40; Cook v.
Taylor, No. 10–2643, 2012 WL 4959519, at *1-*2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16,
2012). In brief, Plaintiff was confined at CCCF from December
2008 through April 2010 as a pretrial detainee. (Am. Compl.
[Docket Item 44-1] at 2, 16.) He alleges that he suffered
physical injuries due to nutritionally deficient meals prepared

2
The Camden County Defendants include Camden County, Warden Eric
Taylor, Deputy Warden Christopher Fossler, Deputy Warden Anthony
Pizzaro, Rodney Greco, and the Camden County Freeholders.
2

by the Aramark Defendants,3 who provided meal service at the
facility. He also alleges that the conditions of confinement
were constitutionally deficient because of (1) overcrowding, (2)
the lack of adequate cleaning supplies, (3) improper handling of
medical needs, (4) understaffing, and (5) the failure to
classify inmates or to prevent violence.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff and many other detainees and inmates brought
virtually identical suits complaining of the general conditions
at CCCF, as well as the unsanitary meal presentation and
inadequate nutrition. The cases were consolidated for a time,
but eventually de-consolidated because the Court was unable to
locate pro bono counsel willing to accept appointments to
represent the plaintiffs. [Docket Item 12.] After deconsolidation, the Aramark Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on March 6, 2012 [Docket Item 14], which Plaintiff did not
oppose. The Court dismissed claims against the Aramark
Defendants in all cases except Plaintiff’s, because before the
Court decided the motion, the Court terminated Plaintiff’s case
without prejudice for failure to comply with L. Civ. R. 10.1(a).4

The Aramark Defendants include Aramark, Inc., Aramark
Correctional Services, LLC, and Dietician Carey.
3

4

L. Civ. R. 10.1(a) requires parties to advise the Court of any
change of address within seven days of such a change. In this
case, the Court mail sent to Plaintiff was returned as
3

[Docket Item 24.] See Simmons v. Taylor, No. 10–1192, 2012 WL
3863792, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2012) (dismissing claims); Cook,
2012 WL 4959519, at *2 (same); Kunst v. Taylor, No. 10–1608,
2012 WL 5451275, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 5, 2012) (same).
Plaintiff reemerged six weeks later to file a notice of
change of address. [Docket Item 26.] Six months after that,
Plaintiff moved to reopen his case. [Docket Item 28.] The Court
reopened Plaintiff’s case and reinstated the Aramark Defendants’
motion to dismiss. [Docket Items 14 & 30.] Plaintiff requested,
and received, additional time to file opposition, and then
simultaneously filed his opposition and a motion to amend the
Complaint, without attaching a proposed Amended Complaint.
[Docket Item 35]. The Court granted the Aramark Defendants’
motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted Plaintiff
additional time to file his motion to amend. [Docket Item 41.]
Upon Plaintiff’s refiling of his motion to amend, the Court
granted the motion as to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause claim against the Aramark Defendants, because
Plaintiff alleged that the small meal portions did not provide
him adequate nutrition and resulted in physical injuries. White,
2013 WL 4595885, at *5. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to

undeliverable from July 2011 to May 2012. (See Docket Items 13,
21, & 25 (documenting undeliverable mail).)
4

add a conspiracy claim against both the Aramark Defendants and
the County Defendants. Id. at *5-*6.
By letter on January 23, 2014, Matthew J. Behr, Esq.,
counsel for the Aramark Defendants, alerted the Court that he
was having difficulty communicating with Plaintiff, that
Plaintiff was not answering Defendants’ discovery requests, and
that legal correspondence sent to Plaintiff was returned as
undeliverable. [Docket Item 61.] The Court mailed a letter to
Plaintiff requesting that he to explain why he had been unable
to answer Defendants’ requests and why he did not update his
address with the Court. [Docket Item 62.] Plaintiff never
responded to the Court’s letter but, approximately one week
later, filed the present motion to amend his Complaint.
Plaintiff has not contacted the Court since; he did not file a
reply brief in support of his motion to amend, and he has not
filed opposition to Defendants’ two motions for summary
judgment.
III. Standard of Review
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a party may amend its
pleading with the court’s leave, and “[t]he court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.” However, the Third Circuit
has recognized that a district court justifiably may deny leave
to amend on grounds “such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory

5

motive, prejudice and futility.” Calif. Pub. Employees’ Ret.
Sys. v. Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 165 (3d Cir. 2004).
IV. Discussion
Plaintiff seeks to again amend his civil rights claims
against the County Defendants. In his motion, Plaintiff does not
highlight exactly what changes he seeks to make.5 Most obviously,
Plaintiff adds official and individual capacity claims against
the individual County Defendants and new factual allegations in
support of his deliberate indifference claims. For instance,
Plaintiff now alleges that, in 2008, he suffered from a dog bite
injury that went untreated, and he contracted a MRSA infection
on his left arm. (Proposed Verified Am. Compl. [Docket Item 63]
at 10-11.) His previous Amended Complaint, filed in April 2013,
contains no allegation that he actually contracted MRSA, merely
that he was housed with inmates who received treatment for MRSA,
and that he was “exposed on a daily basis to a highly contagious
disease . . . .” (Am. Verified Compl. [Docket Item 44-1] at 16.)
As another example, Plaintiff now alleges that Defendant Warden

5
The County Defendants assert, for instance, that Plaintiff “has
added an allegation in the Preliminary Statement Section that
the defendants ‘have established a pattern of violating the
inmates’ constitutional rights,’ and now claims that he
exhausted his administrative remedies . . . .” (County Opp’n at
3.) However, Plaintiff’s previous Amended Complaint included a
Preliminary Statement Section that the “defendants have
established a pattern of violating the inmates Constitutional
rights.” (Am. Verified Compl. [Docket Item 44-1] at 2.)
6

Taylor told him: “‘This is Camden County -- nobody cares about
you guys, and as far as I am concerned, you guys don’t have any
rights!!’” (Proposed Verified Am. Compl. at 10.) The proposed
Amended Complaint also includes a prayer for injunctive relief6
and continues to contain a claim for conspiracy against the
Aramark Defendants (Id. at 22), despite the fact that the Court
dismissed such a claim in its most recent Opinion. See White,
2013 WL 4595885, at *6.
The County Defendants argue that amendment should not be
permitted because (1) discovery has ended, (2) Plaintiff
provides no explanation for delay, (3) Plaintiff could have
included the new factual allegations in the original Complaint,
and (4) Defendants would be prejudiced by reopening discovery.
(County Opp’n at 4.)
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend. Until now,
the Court has tolerated Plaintiff’s dilatory behavior but will
permit no further delay. Plaintiff has not been diligent in
bringing this motion, or in pursuing this case in general, and
permitting amendment would cause prejudice to the Defendants and
additional undue delay in a case that is now more than three
years old. Additionally, amendment of at least two of
Plaintiff’s proposed claims would be futile, as the claims lack
legal merit. See Calif. Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys., 394 F.3d at

6
Plaintiff is no longer confined at CCCF.
7

165 (describing undue delay, prejudice, and futility as
justifiable reasons to deny a motion to amend).
As described more fully supra, Part II.B, after the Aramark
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on March 6, 2012,
Plaintiff effectively disappeared for more than three months
without filing opposition. He did not move to reopen this case
for an additional six months after notifying the Court of his
change of address. He requested and received additional time to
file opposition and simultaneously filed an incomplete motion to
amend with his opposition. Due to the pending motions on the
docket, the Court ordered Plaintiff to propose amended claims
only as to the Aramark Defendants. Despite that directive,
Plaintiff filed, and the Court liberally considered, amended
claims against the County, as well. The Court granted
Plaintiff’s motion in part on August 28, 2013, and Plaintiff
waited another five months before filing the present motion to
amend. In the meantime, a Scheduling Order was entered on
November 19, 2013, setting January 31, 2014, as the deadline for
pretrial factual discovery, with motions for summary judgment
due February 7, 2014. [Docket Item 58.] Plaintiff did not object
to, or seek to alter, this timetable. Plaintiff’s motion to
amend was docketed the day before pretrial factual discovery was
to close. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for his delay in

8

seeking to amend his claims, nor has he offered any rebuttal in
support of his motion.7
The Court also agrees that amendment would prejudice
Defendants, now that pretrial factual discovery has closed, two
dispositive motions have been timely filed, and the deadlines
for expert disclosures and depositions have passed. This is not
a case where discovery disclosed to Plaintiff previously unknown
facts that he now seeks to include in his Complaint. Plaintiff
has been aware of all of the “new” factual allegations for at
least three years and could have included them in the original
Complaint or any of Plaintiff’s previous motions to amend.
Plaintiff also could have sought to amend his Complaint in a
timely manner upon the Court’s determination of his previous
motion to amend, which was months before the close of discovery
-- indeed, months before the Scheduling Order was entered.
Instead, Plaintiff waited five months until discovery was
effectively complete to file the motion. Reopening discovery to

7
In fact, Plaintiff has made no contact with this Court since he
filed the motion to amend in January. He did not file a reply
brief in support of his motion, and he has not filed opposition
to the two pending motions to dismiss. Nor did Plaintiff respond
to the Court’s letter of January 24, 2014, asking him to explain
why he had been unable to answer Defendants’ discovery requests,
as alleged by counsel for the Aramark Defendants. [Docket Item
62.] These are all consistent with causing undue delay to his
own case coupled with indifference to court schedules and
directives, including deadlines previously extended for his
benefit as an act of leniency.
9

investigate and defend against new allegations would prejudice
Defendants.
Finally, Plaintiff proposes claims in his Amended Complaint
that lack legal merit, and therefore, amendment would be futile.
Plaintiff continues to bring a conspiracy claim, despite the
fact that the Court has dismissed this claim. (Proposed Verified
Am. Compl. at 22.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s new allegations for
injunctive relief fail as a matter of law because he is no
longer confined at CCCF and there is no indication that he is
likely to return to confinement. See Jerry v. Francisco, 632
F.2d 252, 255 (3d Cir. 1980) (“We agree that [the plaintiff’s]
injunctive claims are moot, since he no longer is in the Jail
and there is no evidence that he will be transferred back to the
Jail”); Robinson v. Ricci, No. 08-2023, 2012 WL 1067909, at *12
(D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2012) (holding that, because a plaintiff was no
longer confined in a state prison, his claims for injunctive
relief had been rendered moot). Amendment of these claims would
be futile.

10

V. Conclusion
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend on the
grounds of undue delay, prejudice to Defendants, and futility.
An accompanying Order will be entered.

April 14, 2014
Date

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

11