MASON v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Filing
10
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 9/6/17. (jbk, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
THELMA MASON,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-cv-06279 (JBS-AMD)
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,
OPINION
Defendant.
APPEARANCES
Thelma Mason, Plaintiff Pro Se
1234 Decatur Street
Camden, NJ 08104
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
1.
By Complaint dated September 20, 2016, Plaintiff
Thelma Mason presumably sought to bring a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, however, Plaintiff did not list a
defendant. Complaint, Docket Entry 1 (“Original Complaint”), §
III(A). Plaintiff elected to file an Amended Complaint dated
November 9, 2016.
The Amended Complaint stated in its entirety:
“I was set on the floor for one month on a block they was
[illegible] me and I was under the bed.” Amended Complaint §
III(A), Docket Entry 6 (“Amended Complaint”),
2.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No.
104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77, requires a
court to review complaints prior to service in cases in which a
1
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). 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.
In accordance with these directives of the PLRA, this
Court undertook the requisite screening of the Amended Complaint
and, by Order dated November 16, 2017 (Docket Entry 8
(“Dismissal Order”)) dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s
claims alleging constitutional violations as to conditions of
confinement.
4.
The November 16, 2017 dismissal of Plaintiff’s
conditions of confinement claim was without prejudice because,
even accepting the statements in § III of Plaintiff’s Complaint
as true for screening purposes only (““I was set on the floor
for one month on a block they was [illegible] me and I was under
the bed.” (Amended Complaint § III(C)), there was not enough
factual support for the Court to infer that a constitutional
violation had occurred in connection with Plaintiff’s
incarceration. Dismissal Opinion at 5.
5.
The Dismissal Order granted Plaintiff leave to amend
the Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of the
2
Dismissal Order to plead sufficient facts to support a
reasonable inference that a constitutional violation occurred
during her confinement, such as: adverse conditions that were
caused by specific state actors; adverse conditions that caused
Plaintiff to endure genuine privations and hardship over an
extended period of time; or adverse conditions that were
excessive in relation to their purposes.
6.
On November 23, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a Second
Amended Complaint, again asserting claims arising from
incarceration at “Camden County Correctional Facility” (Docket
Entry 9 (“Second Amended Complaint”) at § III(A)), but differing
slightly from the Amended Complaint as to conditions of
confinement facts and alleged injuries. Plaintiff states in her
second amended complaint: “I was forced to sleep on the floor
because there was 3 to 4 people in a cell on the cold floor with
roaches and for that I have to [illegible] and sleep on the
floor. I sleeping on the floor near the toilet were they set
were I sleep at. People throw up where my head at.” Second
Amended Complaint, Docket Entry 9, § III(C). Plaintiff further
alleges the “sergeants, LTs and Cos they all knew about this
problem.” Id.
Second Amended Complaint, Docket Entry 9, §
III(C).
7.
In accordance with the directives of the PLRA, the
Court must now screen the Second Amended Complaint to dismiss
3
any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
suit. Pursuant to this mandate of the PLRA, the Court now finds
that Plaintiff’s November 23, 2016 Second Amended Complaint is
insufficient to constitute an amended complaint that survives
this Court’s review under § 1915.
8.
First, Plaintiff still asserts Camden County
Correctional Facility as the defendant in her action. As the
Court stated in its opinion dismissing claims against this
defendant with prejudice, the CCCF is not a “state actor” within
the meaning of § 1983. See, e.g., Grabow v. Southern State Corr.
Facility, 726 F. Supp. 537, 538–39 (D.N.J. 1989) (correctional
facility is not a “person” under § 1983). Accordingly, the
claims against CCCF must be dismissed with prejudice.
9.
Second, like the Amended Complaint, the Second Amended
Complaint still does not set forth sufficient factual support
for the Court to infer that a constitutional violation has
occurred as to conditions of confinement.
10.
Due process analysis requires courts to consider
whether the totality of confinement conditions “cause[s] 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.” Hubbard v. Taylor,
538 F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). Due process protections
4
“secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers
of government, unrestrained by the established principles of
private right and distributive justice.” Hurtado v. California,
110 U.S. 516, 527 (1884). “[O]nly the most egregious official
conduct can be said to be ‘arbitrary in the constitutional
sense,’ Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 129
(1992), thereby recognizing the point made by Chief Justice
Marshall, that ‘it is a constitution we are expounding,’ Daniels
v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332 (1985) (quoting M'Culloch v.
Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (emphasis in original)).” City of
Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998).
11.
Furthermore, the Constitution “does not mandate
comfortable prisons.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349
(1981).
12.
Accordingly, to demonstrate that purportedly crowded
incarceration conditions of a pretrial detainee shock the
conscience and thus violate due process rights, more is
necessary than that provided by Plaintiff. Thus, the Second
Amended Complaint does not cure the pleading defects in the
Amended Complaint as to Plaintiff’s condition of confinement
claims.
13.
Therefore, even liberally construing the Amended
Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint as this Court is
required to do, Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239,
5
245 (3d Cir. 2013), Plaintiff has still failed to plead
sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that a
constitutional violation occurred during her incarceration in
order to survive this Court’s review under § 1915.
14.
In light of the opportunity that has already been
afforded to Plaintiff by this Court’s November 16, 2016
Dismissal Order to submit a complaint that meets the requisite
pleading standards, and given Plaintiff’s inability in the
November 23, 2016 Second Amended Complaint to allege facts
sufficient to survive § 1915 review, the Court concludes that
permitting further amendment would be futile and hereby
dismisses the entirety of all claims in both the Original
Complaint and in the Amended Complaint with prejudice. See
Hoffenberg v. Bumb, 446 F. App'x 394, 399 (3d Cir. 2011); Rhett
v. N.J. State Superior Court, 260 F. App'x 513, 516 (3d Cir.
2008) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after District Court
gave pro se plaintiff several opportunities to comply with Rule
8).
15.
For the reasons stated above: (a) the Complaint
remains dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s claims
against the defendants; (b) the Amended Complaint is dismissed
with prejudice as to claims concerning conditions of
confinement, for failure to state a claim; and (c) the Second
6
Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety,
for failure to state a claim.
16.
An appropriate order follows.
September 6, 2017
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
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?