FINNEY v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 5/31/2017. (rtm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHARLES L. FINNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY; DIRECTOR DAVID S.
OWENS; WARDEN KAREN TAYLOR,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil Action
No. 16-cv-08482 (JBS-AMD)
OPINION
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
Charles L. Finney, Plaintiff Pro Se
441 Steven Street
Camden, NJ 08103
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.
Plaintiff Charles L. Finney seeks to bring a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden
County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), Director David S. Owens,
and Warden Karen Taylor. 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 claims against the CCCF with prejudice and dismiss
the remainder of 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). “[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 brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 19831 for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional
1
Section 1983 provides: “Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State .
. . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to
2
rights. In order to set forth a prima facie case under § 1983, a
plaintiff must show: “(1) a person deprived him of a federal
right; and (2) the person who deprived him of that right acted
under color of state or territorial law.” Groman v. Twp. of
Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Gomez v.
Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980)).
6.
Generally, for purposes of actions under § 1983,
“[t]he term ‘persons’ includes local and state officers acting
under color of state law.” Carver v. Foerster, 102 F.3d 96, 99
(3d Cir. 1996) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)).2 To
say that a person was “acting under color of state law” means
that the defendant in a § 1983 action “exercised power [that the
defendant] possessed by virtue of state law and made possible
only because the wrongdoer [was] clothed with the authority of
state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (citation
omitted). Generally, then, “a public employee acts under color
of state law while acting in his official capacity or while
the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2 “Person” is not strictly limited to individuals who are state
and local government employees, however. For example,
municipalities and other local government units, such as
counties, also are considered “persons” for purposes of § 1983.
See Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,
690-91 (1978).
3
exercising his responsibilities pursuant to state law.” Id.
at 50.
7.
Plaintiff alleges he experienced unconstitutional
conditions of confinement while detained at the CCCF. Complaint
§ III. The fact section of the complaint states: “While
incarcerated in the Camden County Correctional Facility, I was
forced to sit and sleep on the floor, subjected to crual [sic]
and unusual treatment. Camden County Correctional Facility
officers and staff did nothing to prevent such treatment. Camden
County Correctional Officers forced me to sit and sleep on floor
in Camden County Correctional Facility room units. Due to over
crowding rooms.” Id. 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.
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
4
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[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.”). Some relevant factors are the dates and length of
the confinement(s), whether Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee or
convicted prisoner, etc.
9.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that
a “person” deprived him a federal right. First, Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages from CCCF for allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. The CCCF, however, is not a “person”
within the meaning of § 1983; therefore, the claims against it
must be dismissed with prejudice. See Crawford v. McMillian, 660
F. App’x 113, 116 (3d Cir. 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)). Because the claims
against the CCCF must be dismissed with prejudice, the claims
may not proceed and Plaintiff may not name the CCCF as a
defendant.
10.
However, Plaintiff has named Director David Owens and
Warden Karen Taylor as defendants in the complaint. Though
5
Plaintiff does not state specific allegations regarding the
actions or inactions of either Owens or Taylor, Plaintiff has
alleged that CCCF “officers and staff did nothing to prevent”
the alleged unconstitutional treatment. As discussed above,
however, Plaintiff has not alleged facts supporting an inference
that any constitutional violation has occurred. Even liberally
construing Plaintiff’s pro se complaint to infer that “officers
and staff” refers to and includes Owens and Taylor, the claims
against them cannot proceed at this time.
11.
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.
12.
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
6
explicit. Id. To avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an
amended complaint that is complete in itself.3 Id.
13.
For the reasons stated above, the claims against the
CCCF are dismissed with prejudice. The remainder of 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.
14.
An appropriate order follows.
May 31, 2017
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
3
The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
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?