WALLS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
3
OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 10/31/16. (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
ZIARE WALLS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-cv-06276 (JBS-AMD)
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
DAVID
OWENS;
CAMDEN
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY;
HEALTH SYSTEM,
WARDEN
COUNTY
PRISON
OPINION
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
Ziare Walls, Plaintiff Pro Se
1051 Kenwood Ave
Camden, NJ 08103
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.
Plaintiff Ziare Walls seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of
New Jersey and other defendants for allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement at the Camden County Correctional
Facility (“CCCF”). 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 seeks monetary damages from the State of New
Jersey. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
2
U.S. Const. amend. XI. Plaintiff may not bring a suit against
the State in federal court unless Congress has expressly
abrogated New Jersey's sovereign immunity or the State consents
to being sued in federal court. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). Here, Congress did not expressly
abrogate sovereign immunity when it passed § 1983, see id., and
there is no indication New Jersey has consented to Plaintiff's
suit. The claims against the State of New Jersey must be
dismissed with prejudice.
6.
Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages from CCCF for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. As the
CCCF is not a “state actor” within the meaning of § 1983, the
claims against it must be dismissed with prejudice. See Crawford
v. McMillian, No. 16-3412, 2016 WL 6134846 (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)).
7.
The complaint alleges Plaintiff was forced to sleep
and eat on the floor for long days, and that he was stepped on
at times by the other four inmates of the cell, aggravating
preexisting injuries. Complaint § III. He states “I was forced
to sleep on floor in a cell with 3 sometime 4 other inmates. I
was denied medical treatment.” Id.
Even accepting the
statements as true for screening purposes only, there is not
3
enough factual support for the Court to infer a constitutional
violation has occurred.
8.
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.”).
9.
There are also not enough facts for the Court to infer
Plaintiff was denied adequate medical care. In order to set
forth a cognizable claim for a violation of the right to
adequate medical care, an inmate must allege: (1) a serious
4
medical need; and (2) behavior on the part of prison officials
that constitutes deliberate indifference to that need. See
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Natale v. Camden
Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003). Here,
Plaintiff does not indicate what his serious medical need was,
who denied him treatment, what treatment was needed, or any
facts indicating the responsible parties acted with deliberate
indifference.
10.
Plaintiff may be able to amend the complaint to name
state actors who were personally involved in the alleged
unconstitutional conditions of confinement as well as the other
deficiencies noted by the Court.1 To that end, the Court shall
grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint within 30 days of
the date of this order. In the event Plaintiff files an amended
complaint, he should include specific facts, such as the dates
1
To the extent the complaint seeks relief for conditions
Plaintiff encountered in 2011 and 2012, 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 at CCCF would have been immediately apparent to
Plaintiff at the time of his detention; therefore, the statute
of limitations for some of Plaintiff’s claims expired in 2014 at
the latest. In the event Plaintiff files an amended complaint,
he should focus on the facts of his confinements occurring
within the statute of limitations.
5
and length of his confinement(s), whether he was a pretrial
detainee or convicted prisoner, any specific individuals who
were involved in creating or failing to remedy the conditions of
confinement, and any other relevant facts regarding the
conditions of confinement.2
11.
Plaintiff should note that when an amended complaint
is filed, 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
allegations in the original complaint, 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. The amended
complaint may not adopt or repeat claims that have been
dismissed with prejudice by the Court.
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.
2
The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
6
13.
An appropriate order follows.
October 31, 2016
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
7
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?