WELCH v. CAPE MAY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER et al
Filing
25
OPINION CONSOLIDATING AND STAYING ACTIONS. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/21/16. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
______________________________
Christopher Welch,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
:
Cape May County Corr. Center, :
et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 15-8745(RMB-JS)
Jose Saez,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1351(RMB-JS)
John Hewett,
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1352(RMB-JS)
OPINION CONSOLIDATING AND
STAYING ACTIONS
APPLIES TO ALL ACTIONS
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
1
_______________________________
Thomas M. Rodier,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1464(RMB-JS)
Edward Reichle,
:
: CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1465(RMB-JS)
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
Jermaine Mills,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1466(RMB-JS)
Lawrence Sheeron,
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1478(RMB-JS)
Plaintiff,
v.
County of Cape May et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
2
_______________________________
Eric Konczyk,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1526(RMB-JS)
Sean Hillegass,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1687(RMB-JS)
Alex Vasquez Gonzalez,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1768(RMB-JS)
Derick L. Fitzpatrick,
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1769(RMB-JS)
Plaintiff,
v.
County of Cape May et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
3
_______________________________
David Fessler,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1865(RMB-JS)
Khamal Smith,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1866(RMB-JS)
Sean Tomes,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1912(RMB-JS)
Kenneth Richardson,
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1939(RMB-JS)
Plaintiff,
v.
County of Cape May et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
4
_______________________________
Thomas McNamar,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1974(RMB-JS)
Charles R. Harris, III,
CIV. ACTION NO. 16-1976(RMB-JS)
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
County of Cape May et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, U.S. District Judge
For the reasons discussed below, the above-named actions will
be consolidated into one action, for all purposes, and stayed pending
resolution of the putative class action in Docherty et al. v. County
of Cape May et al., 15cv8785(RMB-JS).
I.
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2015, Christopher Welch, a pre-trial detainee
at Cape May County Correctional Center, filed a civil rights action
alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement related to
overcrowding and several other claims. Welch v. Cape May County Corr.
5
Center et al., 15cv8745(RMB-JS) (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Welch submitted
an amended complaint on January 26, 2016. The Court screened the
amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2)(B)
and
allowed
certain
claims
to
proceed,
including
claims
of
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id., Am. Compl., ECF
Nos. 1, 6; Opinion and Order, ECF Nos. 8, 9.)
On the same day that Welch filed his complaint, Emily Docherty,
a pre-trial detainee at Cape May County Correctional Center who is
represented by counsel, filed a class action civil rights complaint,
also alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement caused by
overcrowding and other allegedly abysmal conditions. Docherty et al.
v. Cape May County et al., 15-8785(RMB-JS). Docherty proposes four
subclasses, two of which include only female pre-trial detainees,
and one of which appears to include the pro se plaintiffs in the
individual actions named above. (Id., Compl. ¶84(D)). The definition
of the inclusive proposed subclass, the “overcrowding injunctive
class,” “is a class of current and future male and female inmates
seeking declaration and injunctive relief from overcrowding and
other [allegedly] abysmal conditions . . .”1
1
The proposed “overcrowding damages class” also includes male and
female inmates, but, as presently defined, it applies only to former
and not current inmates. (Compl., ¶84(B)).
6
On March 10, 2016, Jose Saez, also a pre-trial detainee at Cape
May County Correctional Center, filed a civil rights action. Saez
cited to Welch’s civil action, and his complaint appeared, in large
part, to have been copied or patterned on the conditions of
confinement claims in Welch’s amended complaint. As in Welch’s case
and the putative class action, Saez alleged he could not complete
the grievance process within the correctional facility because he
was refused formal grievance forms. (Saez, 16cv1351(RMB-JS), Compl.,
ECF No. 1 at 10, ¶46.) After the Saez Complaint was filed, at least
fifteen additional, nearly identical complaints have been filed pro
se by male pre-trial detainees in Cape May County Correctional
Center.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Consolidation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides:
(a) Consolidation. If actions before the court
involve a common question of law or fact, the
court may:
(1) join for hearing or trial any or all
matters at issue in the actions;
(2) consolidate the actions; or
(3) issue any other orders
unnecessary cost or delay.
7
to
avoid
“[C]onsolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and
economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single
cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are
parties in one suit parties in another.” Johnson v. Manhattan Ry.
Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496–97 (1933); see Cella v. Togum Constructeur
Ensemleier en Industrie Alimentaire, 173 F.3d 909, 912 (3d Cir. 1999)
(“Johnson remains the ‘authoritative’ statement on the law of
consolidation.”) (quoting Newfound Management Corp. v. Lewis, 131
F.3d 108, 116 (3d Cir. 1997)).
Rule 42(a) does not require that pending suits be identical
before they can be consolidated. A.F.I.K. Holding SPRL v. Fass, 216
F.R.D. 567, 570 (D.N.J. 2003). Specific factors to consider in
consolidation are risk of possible confusion, risk of inconsistent
adjudications of common issues of law and fact, burden on parties
and witnesses, length of time required and relative expense. Id.
(citing In re Consolidated Parlodel Litig., 182 F.R.D. 441, 444
(D.N.J. 1998) (citations omitted). Courts should balance the savings
of time and effort against the inconvenience, delay or expense that
might
result
“from
simultaneous
disposition
of
the
separate
actions.” Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corp., 149
F.R.D. 65, 81 (D.N.J. 1993) (citing Waste Distillation Tech., Inc.
8
v. Pan American Resources, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 759, 761 (D.Del.
1991)(additional citations omitted).
The Defendants in Welch, 15-8745(RMB-JS) filed an Answer on
April 14, 2016. The remainder of the pro se actions have yet to be
screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B), and have not been
served on the defendants. Given the very early stages of each of these
cases, very little inconvenience, delay or expense would result from
consolidation.
Each of these cases present the same issue of whether the
conditions of confinement in Cape May County Correctional Center
amount to punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The court’s inquiry into this issue must
consider the totality of the circumstances in the institution.
Hubbard v. Taylor, 538 F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). The factual
allegations related to overcrowding and the physical conditions in
the correctional facility apply to all Plaintiffs.
Consolidating the above cases at this early stage will result
in
judicial
economy
of
resources,
which
will
facilitate
the
expediency of discovery and resolution of the cases for all parties.
The balancing of time and effort gained through consolidation weighs
heavily against any inconvenience, delay or expense that a party
might incur from consolidated proceedings on these separate actions.
9
The Court will therefore consolidate the above-named actions, and
consolidate future similar cases that are filed in this Court.
B.
STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF CLASS ACTION
District
courts
have
broad
discretionary
powers
to
stay
proceedings. Bechtel Corp. v. Local 215, Laborers’ Intern. Union of
North America AFL-CIO, 544 F.2d 1207, 1215 (3d Cir. 1976) (citing
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). “In the
exercise of its sound discretion, a court may hold one lawsuit in
abeyance to abide the outcome of another which may substantially
affect it or be dispositive of the issues.” Id.; see Takacs v.
Middlesex County, 2001 WL 1375682, at *1 (D.N.J. April 12, 2011)
(court stayed putative class action alleging members of the class
were strip-searched in violation of their constitutional rights,
pending outcome in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals of another class
action involving strip searches of pre-trial detainees.)
The core of the class action complaint in Docherty is the same
as the individual pro se plaintiffs’ complaints; the overcrowding
and allegedly abysmal conditions for pre-trial detainees in Cape May
Correctional Center violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Conditions of confinement claims require analysis of
whether the conditions are reasonably related to a legitimate
governmental objective, and whether the conditions are excessive in
10
relation to the purpose assigned to them. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520, 538 (1979). Such issues are common to all parties subject to
those condition[s].
Although there are some differing factual allegations between
the class action and the individual pro se cases, in conducting the
due process analysis, the court must look at the totality of the
circumstances in the institution. See Hubbard, 538 F.3d at 233
(determining whether conditions are excessive in relation to the
legitimate purpose “assigned to them,” “we do not assay separately
each of the institutional practices but [instead] look to the
totality of the conditions”) (citations omitted)).
All plaintiffs
are current or recent pre-trial detainees in Cape May County
Correctional
Center,
therefore
subject
to
the
same
overall
conditions in the institution. All plaintiffs seek damages and
injunctive relief. Resolution of the Fourteenth Amendment claims in
the class action will substantially affect or be dispositive of the
Fourteenth Amendment claims in the individual pro se cases.
Determination of the common legal and factual issues in the
proposed class action, prior to litigation of the numerous pro se
actions,
will
save
vast
judicial
resources
and
expedite
the
resolution of the Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement
claims. This will benefit the individual pro se plaintiffs, for whom
11
it would be very difficult and time consuming to prosecute their
claims within the confines of pre-trial detention.
By
separate
Order,
the
Court
will
review
the
pending
applications to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 filed
by pro se plaintiffs. If an application is granted, installment
payments on the $350 filing fee will begin to be deducted from the
individual’s prison trust account. For those plaintiffs whose cases
have been or later are administratively terminated for filing a
deficient application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, they will be allowed
to correct the deficiency by submitting a proper completed IFP
application within thirty days. When an IFP application is granted,
the case will be re-stayed pending resolution of the putative class
action. Future similar cases that are filed will also be stayed after
determination of the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.
IV.
CONCLUSION
In the accompanying Order filed herewith, the above-named
actions will be consolidated for all purposes, and stayed pending
resolution of Docherty et al. v. County of Cape May et al.,
15-8785(RMB-JS).
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
DATED: April 21, 2016
12
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?