BRYANT v. JACKSON et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER withdrawing withoutprejudice to renewal 49 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 8/11/2015. (tf,n.m.)

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

PONTELL BRYANT,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 13-2823 (JBS-AMD)

v.
S/C.O. G. JACKSON, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants Bagliani and Rivera’s motion
for summary judgment. (Docket Entry 49).
1.

Defendants assert summary judgment is warranted on

Plaintiff Pontell Bryant’s excessive force claim because he
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In support of
their motion, Defendants submitted numerous institutional remedy
forms, none of which reference the assault alleged in the
complaint. (See, e.g., Docket Entries 49-3, 49-4, 49-5, and 496).
2.

Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition stating that he

did submit a remedy form regarding the assault and was
interviewed by the Special Investigations Division (“SID”) on
two occasions. (See Docket Entry 53 at 1).
3.

By Order and Memorandum Opinion date July 16, 2015,

this Court dismissed Defendant Higbee and Herman’s motion for
summary judgment, (Docket Entries 55 and 56), which was made on

the same factual record as the present motion for summary
judgment filed by Defendants Bagliani and Rivera. (See generally
Docket Entry 35).
4.

In its July 16 Order and Memorandum Opinion, this

Court determined there was a question of fact as to whether
Plaintiff substantially complied with the administrative remedy
system, and that it was premature to decide the exhaustion issue
until the parties have had the opportunity to obtain discovery
regarding the alleged assault claim including the interviews of
plaintiff. (See Docket Entry 55 ¶ 8).
5.

The Court dismissed the summary judgment motion

without prejudice to renewal after the relevant discovery has
been exchanged, which is to take place within 30 days of the
Court’s Order. (See Docket Entry 55 ¶ 8).
6.

By letter dated July 21, 2015, Defendants Bagliani and

Rivera indicated to the Court that they would withdraw their
summary judgment motion, Docket Entry 49, without prejudice to
their right to renew the motion after the relevant discovery has
been exchanged. (Docket Entry 57).
THEREFORE, it is on this

11th

day of

August

, 2015;

ORDERED that Defendants Bagliani and Rivera’s motion for
summary judgment (Docket Entry 49) is WITHDRAWN without
prejudice to renewal; and it is further;

2

ORDERED that Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff, in
compliance with this Court’s July 16, 2015 Order, any and all
evidence (such as notes, documents, and records) that is in the
possession or control of South Woods State Prison and/or the
Special Investigation Division regarding Plaintiff’s allegation
of the use of excessive force on June 12, 2013 and any
investigation undertaken in response thereto; such evidence may
redact sensitive information such as any informant’s identity,
confidential investigative techniques, confidential personnel
information, and the like; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order
upon Plaintiff by regular mail.
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

3