NEWBILL v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

Filing 3

OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/23/16. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ALPHONSO NEWBILL,
Plaintiff,
v.

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil Action
No. 16-cv-06050 (JBS-AMD)

CAMDEN
COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY; WARDEN JAMES OWENS;
DEPUTY WARDEN C. JOHNSON; CAMDEN
COUNTY BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS,

OPINION

Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
Alphonso Newbill, Plaintiff Pro Se
1233 Lakeshore Dr.
Camden, NJ 08105
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.

Plaintiff Alphonso Newbill seeks to bring a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden
County Freeholders (“Freeholders”), Warden James Owens, Deputy
Warden C. Johnson, and the Camden County Correctional Facility
(“CCCF”) for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of
confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
2.

Section 1915(e)(2) requires a court to review

complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court must sua sponte dismiss
any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. This action is
subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
3.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will

dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
4.

To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a

claim, the complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to
show that the claim is facially plausible. Fowler v. UPMS
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308
n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “[A]
pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
5.

Plaintiff alleges he experienced unconstitutional

conditions of confinement during his detention at the CCCF.
Complaint § III. He states: “I was placed in a cell with 4 other
inmates violating my rights and causing me to have multiple
emotions of ppl urinating on me and my food. I can’t sleep and
2

have numerous dreams.” Id. § III. Even accepting the statement
as true for screening purposes only, there is not enough factual
support for the Court to infer a constitutional violation has
occurred.
6.

The mere fact that an individual is lodged temporarily

in a cell with more persons than its intended design does not
rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Rhodes v.
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348–50 (1981) (holding double-celling by
itself did not violate Eighth Amendment); Carson v. Mulvihill,
488 F. App'x 554, 560 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[M]ere double-bunking
does not constitute punishment, because there is no ‘one man,
one cell principle lurking in the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.’” (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 542
(1979))). More is needed to demonstrate that such crowded
conditions, for a pretrial detainee, shocks the conscience and
thus violates due process rights. See Hubbard v. Taylor, 538
F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting due process analysis
requires courts to consider whether the totality of the
conditions “cause inmates to endure such genuine privations and
hardship over an extended period of time, that the adverse
conditions become excessive in relation to the purposes assigned
to them.”). Some relevant factors are the dates and length of
her confinement(s), whether he was a pretrial detainee or
convicted prisoner, etc.
3

7.

Moreover, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts

regarding the personal liability of the Freeholders. As the
governing body of Camden County, the Freeholders cannot be held
liable under § 1983 solely on a theory of respondeat superior.
Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690–91
(1978). Plaintiff must instead plead facts showing that the
Freeholders are “responsible for either the affirmative
proclamation of a policy or acquiescence in a well-settled
custom.” Bielevicz v. Dubinon, 915 F.2d 845, 850 (3d Cir. 1990).1
In other words, Plaintiff must set forth facts supporting an
inference that the Freeholders were the “moving force” behind
the alleged constitutional violation. Monell, 436 U.S. at 689.
8.

Likewise, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to

support an inference that Warden Owens and Deputy Warden Johnson
were each personally involved in either the creation of, or
failure to address, the conditions of his confinement. State
actors are liable only for their own unconstitutional conduct
and may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of

1

“Policy is made when a decisionmaker possess[ing] final
authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the
action issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict.
Government custom can be demonstrated by showing that a given
course of conduct, although not specifically endorsed or
authorized by law, is so well-settled and permanent as virtually
to constitute law.” Kirkland v. DiLeo, 581 F. App'x 111, 118 (3d
Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
(alteration in original).
4

their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); Bistrian v. Levi,
696 F.3d 352, 366 (3d Cir. 2012).
9.

To the extent the complaint could be construed as

being against CCCF itself, claims against it must be dismissed
with prejudice as a prison is not a “state actor” within the
meaning of § 1983. See Crawford v. McMillian, No. 16-3412, 2016
WL 6134846, *2 (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 2016) (“[T]he prison is not an
entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (citing Fischer
v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)).
10.

Plaintiff may be able to amend his complaint to

address the deficiencies noted by the Court, however. To that
end, the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.
11.

Plaintiff should note that when an amended complaint

is filed,2 the original complaint no longer performs any function
in the case and cannot be utilized to cure defects in the
amended complaint, unless the relevant portion is specifically
incorporated in the new complaint. 6 Wright, Miller & Kane,
Federal Practice and Procedure 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (footnotes
omitted). An amended complaint may adopt some or all of the

2

The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
5

allegations in the original complaint,3 but the identification of
the particular allegations to be adopted must be clear and
explicit. Id. To avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an
amended complaint that is complete in itself. Id.
12.

For the reasons stated above, the complaint is

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The
Court will reopen the matter in the event Plaintiff files an
amended complaint within the time allotted by the Court.
13.

An appropriate order follows.

November 23, 2016
Date

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

3

To the extent the complaint seeks relief for conditions
Plaintiff encountered prior to September 27, 2014, those claims
are barred by the statute of limitations. Claims brought under §
1983 are governed by New Jersey's two-year limitations period
for personal injury. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276
(1985); Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir.
2010). “Under federal law, a cause of action accrues when the
plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury upon which the
action is based.” Montanez v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr., 773 F.3d
472, 480 (3d Cir. 2014). The allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement would have been immediately apparent
to Plaintiff; therefore, the statute of limitations on some of
Plaintiff’s claims expired two years after his release. In the
event Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, he should
limit his complaint to confinements in which he was released
after September 27, 2014.
6