WOODALL v. COHEN et al

Filing 19

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 5/9/2018. (rtm, )

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 277

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

DOMINIQUE WOODALL,
Plaintiff

Civ. No. 17-1286 (RMB)

v.

OPINION

GERALDINE COHEN,
Defendant
Appearances:
Dominique Woodall
Mountainview Youth Correctional Facility
31 Petticoat Lane
Annandale, NJ 08801
Plaintiff, pro se
James T. Dugan, Esq.
Atlantic County Department of Law
1333 Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
On behalf of Defendant
BUMB, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Geraldine
Cohen’s motion for summary judgment and supporting documents.
(“Def’s Mot. for Summ. J.”, ECF No. 17; “Def’s Brief in Support of
Mot. for Summ. J.”, ECF No. 17-1; “Def’s Statement of Material
Facts Not in Dispute”, ECF No. 17-1 at 7-10; and Def’s Exhibits,
ECF Nos 17-2 through 17-15.) Plaintiff Dominique Woodall did not
submit an opposition brief or a Statement of Material Facts in

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 278

Dispute but he submitted a number of exhibits, which this Court
construes as Plaintiff’s attempt to make a showing of disputed
material facts.1 The Court will decide the motion on the record,
without

an

oral

hearing,

pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 78(b).
I.

BACKGROUND
Upon screening Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B),

§

1915A(b),

the

Court

permitted

Plaintiff’s

Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care and unconstitutional
conditions

of

confinement

claims

to

proceed

against

Warden

Geraldine Cohen. (Opinion and Order, ECF Nos. 1 and 2.) Defendant
brings this motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the bases that: (1) Plaintiff

1

On October 18, 2017, counsel for Defendant submitted a
certificate of service stating he served Defendant’s summary
judgment motion and documents in support thereof on Plaintiff at
Garden State Youth Correctional Facility via regular U.S. mail and
certified mail return receipt requested. (Certificate of Service,
ECF No. 17-15.) Using the U.S. Postal Service tracking number
provided, the Court was unable to verify that the mail was
delivered. On December 18, 2017, the Court received a number of
documents from Plaintiff. (Pl’s Exhibits, ECF No. 18.) The return
address on the envelope containing Plaintiff’s exhibits shows that
he mailed the exhibits from Talbot Hall in Kearney, New Jersey.
Plaintiff had not otherwise updated his address with the Court, as
required by Local Civil Rule 10.1. It is unclear when Plaintiff
transferred from Garden State to Talbot Hall. The Court assumes
Plaintiff was served with Defendant’s summary judgment motion and
supporting documents. However, because the Court cannot verify
Plaintiff was served, dismissal of the action is without prejudice,
and the action may be reopened within 30 days if Plaintiff
establishes he was not served with the summary judgment motion.
2

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 279

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Plaintiff’s
claims are based on an impermissible theory of respondeat superior;
(3) Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact that the conditions of his confinement amounted to
punishment so as to violate his constitutional rights; (4) there
is no evidence that the conditions of confinement amounted to
punishment or a deprivation of life’s necessities; (5) Defendant
was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs; and
(6) Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. (Def’s Brief in
Supp. of Mot., ECF No. 17-1.)

The Court need only reach the

preliminary issue of PLRA exhaustion.
III. DISCUSSION
A.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary Judgment is proper where the moving party “shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact,” and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a); U.S. ex rel. Kosenske v. Carlisle HMA, Inc., 554
F.3d 88, 94 (3d Cir. 2009). The moving party must demonstrate there
is no genuine issue of material fact, and then the burden shifts
to the nonmoving party to present evidence to the contrary. Josey
v. John R. Hollingsworth Corp., 996 F.2d 632, 637 (3d Cir. 1993)
(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).

3

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 280

A party asserting that a fact is or is not genuinely disputed
must support the assertion by citing materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, affidavits or declarations or
other materials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). “An affidavit or
declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on
personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to
testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). “At the
summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a ‘genuine’
dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (3d
Cir. 2007) (citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c)).
B.

PLRA Exhaustion Requirement

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), enacted as part of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), provides, “[n]o action shall be brought with
respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or
any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison,
or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies
as are available are exhausted.” Under § 1997e(a), “an inmate is
required to exhaust those, but only those, grievance procedures
that are [available],” in other words, “grievance procedures that
are

‘capable

of

use’

to

obtain

‘some

relief

for

the

action

complained of.’” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016)
(quoting Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738 (2001)). The PLRA’s
4

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 281

exhaustion requirement “applies to a grievance procedure described
in

an

inmate

handbook

but

not

formally

adopted

by

a

state

administrative agency.” Concepcion v. Morton, 306 F.3d 1347, 134849 (3d Cir. 20002).
Exhaustion under this provision is mandatory. Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 739). This
mandatory exhaustion requirement applies to “all inmate suits
about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or
particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or
some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).
Furthermore,

the

provision

requires

“proper

exhaustion.”

Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93. “Proper exhaustion demands compliance
with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules
because no adjudicative system can function effectively without
imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.”
Id. at 90-91. “The exhaustion requirement includes a proceduraldefault component, and a prisoner must comply with the prison
grievance procedures to properly exhaust his claims.” Veasey v.
Fisher, 307 F. App’x 614, 616 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Spruill v.
Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 230-31 (3d Cir. 2004.))
Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that must be
proved by a defendant. Shumanis v. Lehigh County, 675 F. App’x
145, 147 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216,
(2007); Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287, 295 (3d Cir. 2002)). PLRA
5

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 282

exhaustion is a question of law to be determined by a judge. Drippe
v. Tobelinski, 604 F.3d 778, 782 (3d Cir. 2010)).
C.

The ACJF Administrative Remedy Program

In support of her motion for summary judgment, Defendant
submitted a statement of undisputed material facts. (ECF No. 17-1
at 7-10.) Defendant stated:
The
ACJF’s
Inmate
Handbook
provides
administrative remedies for inmates to resolve
problems
or
concerns
in
the
facility.
Initially, an inmate will file an Inmate
Resolution Form with his request/complaint. If
the Inmate Resolution Form does not satisfy
the inmate’s concerns, he is to file an inmate
grievance.
(Id., ¶7 (citing Inmate Handbook, Ex. A, ECF No. 17-2.)) Defendant
also submitted a copy of Plaintiff’s Inmate Property Record, dated
July 17, 2015, indicating his property included a “Rule Book”
provided by the Institution. (Inmate Property Record, Ex. K, ECF
No. 17-12.)
The Inmate Handbook describes ACJF’s administrative remedy
program. (Inmate Handbook, Ex. A, ECF No. 17-2 at 21-22.) The first
step is for an inmate to submit an inmate resolution form through
the Chain of Command (i.e.: Officer, Lieutenant, Shift Commander).
(Id. at 21.) When these attempts at resolution have been exhausted
without

success,

the

matter

can

be

formally

grieved

to

the

Warden/Director’s Office on a grievance form that can be obtained

6

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 283

“from the Lieutenant after the final step of the resolution form.”
(Id.)
The following matters may not be grieved: matters out of the
control of the facility (probation, parole, sentences, court)”;
disciplinary matters taken against a grieving inmate or any other
inmates;

and

housing

assignments

and

classification

status.

(Inmate Handbook, Ex. A, ECF No. 17-2 at 21.) Inmates must file a
grievance within ten work days from the date of the last step of
the resolution form. (Id.) The Director/Warden has fifteen work
days from the date of the receipt of the complaint to render a
decision. (Id.)
D.

Analysis

Defendant argues she is entitled to summary judgment based on
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In support of this claim, Defendant submits
that Plaintiff received the Inmate Handbook containing the prison
grievance procedure when he was admitted to ACJF. (Inmate Handbook,
Ex. A, ECF No. 17-2; Inmate Property Record, Ex. K, ECF No. 1712.)

During

his

20-month

period

of

incarceration,

Plaintiff

submitted multiple Inmate Resolution Forms but none of those forms
contained the complaints raised in his civil rights action: lack
of

cleaning

supplies;

the

kitchen

serving

cold

leftovers;

overcrowding; physical hazards in the cell; mold in the showers;
canteen price gouging; inmate housing fees; medical and dental co7

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 284

pays; medical evaluation; visitation and recreation privileges or
complaints about the law library. (Def’s Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts, ECF No. 17-1 at ¶¶27-28; and Certification of
Geraldine Cohen, Exhibit J, ECF No. 17-11.) Plaintiff never filed
a

single

grievance

form

during

his

20-month

period

of

incarceration. (Id., ¶29; and Certification of Geraldine Cohen,
Exhibit J, ECF No. 17-11.)
Defendant

also

submitted

a

deposition

transcript

for

Plaintiff’s deposition taken on September 6, 2017. (Deposition of
Dominque Woodall (“Woodall Dep.,”) Ex. B, ECF No. 17-3.) Plaintiff
admitted to the following: (1) that he never wrote an Inmate
Resolution Form concerning overcrowding;2 (2) that he never filed
a grievance after receiving an unsatisfactory response to an Inmate
Resolution Form;3 (3) that he never filed an Inmate Resolution Form
or a grievance form regarding canteen price gouging;4 (4) that he
never filed an Inmate Resolution Form concerning rent, medical copays

or

dental

co-pays;5

(5)

that

he

never

filed

an

Inmate

Resolution Form concerning medical screening.6
Plaintiff did not submit an opposition brief or a Statement
of Disputed Material Facts. Plaintiff, however, submitted the

2
3
4
5
6

(Woodall Dep., Ex. B, ECF No. 17-3 at T63 10-18).
(Id.)
(Id. at T64 12-16).
(Id. at T65 5-8).
(Id. at T66 7-9).
8

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 285

following:

a Public Defender Application Form that he completed

on October 18, 2017; eighteen Sick Call/Co-Payment Charge Sheets,
wherein he requested medical care for various ailments; an Inmate
Request Form asking for a copy of the Bill of Rights; four Inmate
Request Forms asking about entries in his financial account,
including deposits and co-payments deducted; an Inmate Request
Form asking for more food; three Inmate Request Forms asking to
participate in a drug rehabilitation program; an Inmate Request
Form asking for news from his Case Worker; an Inmate Request Form
asking for help signing up for drug court; and an Appeal of Inmate
Disciplinary Decision, dated October 16, 2016. (Pl’s Exhibits, ECF
No. 18.)
None of these documents create an issue of disputed material
fact over Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust ACJF’s prison grievance
process. There are no exhibits showing Plaintiff brought any of
his complaints regarding his medical treatment, his co-pays, or
any other condition of confinement alleged in his complaint to
violate the Constitution through the final level of the prison
grievance process, a formal grievance to the Warden/Director’s
Office.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) provides:
If a party fails to properly support an
assertion of fact or fails to properly address
another party's assertion of fact as required
by Rule 56(c), the court may:

9

Case 1:17-cv-01286-RMB-JS Document 19 Filed 05/09/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 286

(1) give an opportunity to
support or address the fact;
(2) consider the fact
purposes of the motion;

properly

undisputed

for

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion
and supporting materials--including the
facts considered undisputed--show that
the movant is entitled to it; or
(4) issue any other appropriate order.
Defendant has shown that there is no genuine dispute that
ACJF has an administrative remedy program and Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his remedies under that program before filing his prisoner
civil

rights

complaint.

Therefore,

Defendant

is

entitled

to

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). Dismissal of this action is without prejudice. If
Plaintiff comes forward, within 30 days of the date of this
decision,

and

establishes

that

he

never

received

Defendant’s

summary judgment motion, the case may be reopened and summary
judgment reconsidered. See supra note 1.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For

the

reasons

discussed

above,

Defendant’s

motion

summary judgment is granted.
An appropriate order follows.

DATE: May 9, 2018
s/Renée Marie Bumb__________
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
10

for