RAINES v. LAPPIN et al
Filing
55
OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 5/24/2013. (tf, n.m.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
(Document No. 38)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
___________________________________
:
JAMES O. RAINES,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
:
HAVELY G. LAPPIN, et al.
:
:
Defendants. :
___________________________________ :
Civil No. 11-5681 (RBK/AMD)
OPINION
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This is a Bivens action brought by Plaintiff James O. Raines (“Plaintiff”) against fifteen
present and former employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (collectively, “Defendants”) for
injuries he allegedly suffered during his incarceration at three federal corrections facilities.
Currently before the Court is a motion on behalf of six defendants to dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc. No. 38). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). For the
reasons stated herein, the Court will grant the motion.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
During the time period relevant to this litigation, August 2001 through September 2011,
Plaintiff was incarcerated at three federal corrections facilities: first at the Federal Correctional
Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey (“FCI Fort Dix”), then at the Federal Correctional Institution
at Ray Brook, New York (“FCI Ray Brook”), and finally at the Federal Correctional Institution
at Elkton, Ohio (“FCI Elkton”). His Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to provide him
1
with adequate protection from allegedly hazardous substances he claims to have been exposed to
while working at the Federal Prison Industries Laser Cartridge Remanufacture Facility at FCI
Fort Dix. He further claims that this exposure caused him to experience numerous health effects,
including skin rashes, hair loss, and burning pain in his legs. Compl., Counts One and Two.
Further, Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to administer proper medical tests once he began
to present with these symptoms, and that the resulting improper diagnosis aggravated his
condition. Compl., Count Three.
Plaintiff’s Complaint names fifteen Defendants, six of whom were federal corrections
employees at either FCI Rye Brook or FCI Elkton: Dawn Marini, Kim Burdo, Janet Bunts, Gary
Bullock, John Dunlop, and Wayne Flatt. These six Defendants filed the instant motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(2). Specifically, they assert that there is no basis upon which a New Jersey Court may
exercise either specific or general personal jurisdiction over them. Five of the Defendants aver
that they have never owned real property in New Jersey, had a residence in New Jersey, worked
in New Jersey, or had a business interest in New Jersey. Def.’s Br. in Support of Mot. to
Dismiss 6-7. The sixth Defendant, Dawn Marini, avers that she has had no such relationship to
New Jersey since 1988. Marini Decl. ¶ 23.
II.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
On a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears
the burden of establishing such jurisdiction. Mellon Bank (East) P.S.F.S. v. Farino, 960 F.2d
1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992). However, when the factual record contains only pleadings and
affidavits, this burden involves merely establishing a prima facie case that personal jurisdiction
exists over the defendant. Fiscus v. Combus Finance AG, No. 03-1328, 2006 WL 1722607 at *3
2
(D.N.J. June 20, 2006). Further, for purposes of deciding the motion, the Court accepts as true
the factual allegations stated within the complaint. Dayhoff Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 86 F.3d 1287,
1302 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing Rule 12(b)(2)).
Sitting in New Jersey, the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out of state
defendant only to the extent authorized by the state’s long arm statute. Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(k)(1)(A). The New Jersey statute, however, is “intended to extend as far as is constitutionally
permissible.” DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F.2d 280 (3d Cir.1981). Thus, the
Court applies general principles of federal constitutional law in order to determine whether it
may exercise jurisdiction over Defendant.
The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant depends upon
whether that defendant has established “certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such
that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.” Telcordia Tech Inc. v. Telkom SA Ltd., 458 F.3d 172, 177 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Int’l
Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). In particular, when a defendant establishes
such minimum contacts, the Court may exercise so-called “specific personal jurisdiction” over
that defendant for claims arising out of those contacts. Carteret Sav. Bank, FA v. Shushan, 954
F.2d 141, 149 (3d Cir. 1992). In determining whether specific personal jurisdiction exists in a
given claim, the principal inquiry is whether the defendant, by some affirmative act, has
“purposely avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state.”
Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 482 (3d Cir. 1993)
(quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)). Alternatively, a court may exercise
“general personal jurisdiction” over a defendant that has “maintained systematic and continuous
contacts with the forum state.” Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 296 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing
3
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 & n.8 (1984)). If a
defendant maintains this level of contact with the forum state, personal jurisdiction will lie
regardless of the claim’s subject matter.
In this case, it is clear that none of the six defendants has maintained the sort of
“systematic and continuous contacts” with New Jersey that would give rise to general
jurisdiction; indeed, five of them appear to have no contacts at all, while the sixth has not had
any contacts for almost twenty-five years. See Marten, 499 F.3d at 296. Similarly, there exists
no specific personal jurisdiction over any of these six defendants because there is no indication
that any of them have “purposefully availed [themselves] of the privilege of conducting
activities” in New Jersey. See Grand Entertainment Group, 988 F.2d at 482. Further, any
contacts that might exist appear to have nothing to do with the substance of Plaintiff’s claims
against them, involving alleged acts and omissions at prison facilities in Ohio and New York.
For these reasons, the Court must grant these Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims
against them for want of personal jurisdiction.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for lack of
personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) will be granted. The Court
will issue an appropriate order.
Dated:
5/24/2013
/s/ Robert B. Kugler
_
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?