BAILEY v. CAMDEN COUNTY
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 2/2/2017. (dmr)(n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
JAVON K. BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-cv-06818(JBS-AMD)
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY,
OPINION
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
Javon K. Bailey
Plaintiff Pro Se
1508 South 10th Street
Camden, NJ 08104
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.
Plaintiff Javon K. Bailey seeks to bring a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden
County for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement
in the Camden County Jail. Complaint, Docket Entry 1. Based on
Plaintiff’s affidavit of indigency, the Court will grant his
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
2.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires courts to review
complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. Courts 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
1
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, a 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). “[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 that he experienced unconstitutional
conditions of confinement during his detention at the Camden
County Jail in “June 2013, August 2014 [and] March 2016.”
Complaint § III(A),(B). He states: “On three separate occasions
I was arrested. [D]uring my time in the Camden County Jail I was
2
forced to sleep on the floor next to the facilities. Rodents ran
across my legs throughout my stay.” Id. § III(C).
6.
Plaintiff alleges that he “currently suffer[s] extreme
back pain including back spasm. Prior to staying on the floor I
never had any issues with my back. I have not received any
medical treatment.” Id. § IV.
7.
With respect to alleged damages, Plaintiff states: “I
am not seeking a specific dollar amount. However, I do believe
that I should receive a dollar amount equivalent to the pain and
suffering I sustained physically, mentally and emotionally. I
believe some rules, guidelines, plans and procedures should be
put in place to prohibit this from happening to anyone else.”
Id. § V.
8.
Even accepting these statements as true for screening
purposes only, there is not enough factual support for the Court
to infer a constitutional violation has occurred.
9.
Even construing the Complaint to allege
unconstitutional conditions of confinement arising from
purported overcrowding that led to Plaintiff’s “sleeping on the
floor” (Complaint § III(C)), 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);
3
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 the confinement(s), whether Plaintiff was a
pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner, etc.
10.
In the event Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he
should include specific facts, such as the dates and length of
his confinement, 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.
11.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to
impose liability on Camden County. “There is no respondeat
superior theory of municipal liability, so a city may not be
4
held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of its
agents. Rather, a municipality may be held liable only if its
policy or custom is the ‘moving force’ behind a constitutional
violation.” Sanford v. Stiles, 456 F.3d 298, 314 (3d Cir. 2006)
(citing Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,
691 (1978)). See also Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503
U.S. 115, 122 (1992) (“The city is not vicariously liable under
§ 1983 for the constitutional torts of its agents: It is only
liable when it can be fairly said that the city itself is the
wrongdoer.”).
12.
Plaintiff must plead facts showing that the relevant
Camden County policy-makers are “responsible for either the
affirmative proclamation of a policy or acquiescence in a wellsettled 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 Camden County itself was the
“moving force” behind the alleged constitutional violation.
Monell, 436 U.S. at 689.
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).
5
13.
As Plaintiff may be able to amend his Complaint to
address the deficiencies noted by the Court, the Court shall
grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint within 30 days of
the date of this order.
14.
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
allegations in the original complaint, but the identification of
the particular allegations to be adopted3 must be clear and
2
The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
3
To the extent the Complaint seeks relief for conditions
Plaintiff encountered prior to October 9, 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 at Camden County Jail 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 October 9, 2014.
6
explicit. Id. To avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an
amended complaint that is complete in itself. Id.
15.
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.
16.
An appropriate order follows.
February 2, 2017
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?