WOODALL v. COHEN et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/10/2017. (rtm, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
DOMINQUE WOODALL,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.

WARDEN GERALDINE COHEN,
et al.,
Defendants.

Civ. Action No. 17-1286 (RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, District Judge:
Plaintiff Dominique Woodall, an inmate confined in Atlantic
County Justice Facility (“ACJF”), in Atlantic City, New Jersey,
filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February
23, 2017.

(Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff seeks to proceed

without prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP”) under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
filed

a

financial

properly

(IFP App., ECF No. 1-2.)

completed

eligibility

to

IFP

proceed

application,
in

forma

Plaintiff has

establishing

pauperis,

and

her
her

application will be granted.
The Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b) to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a

1 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
I. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Fed. R.

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state

a

Ashcroft

claim
v.

to

relief

Iqbal,

556

that

U.S.

is

plausible

662,

678

on

(2009)

its

(quoting

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
has

facial

plausibility

when

the

plaintiff

face.’”

pleads

Bell

“A claim
factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.)
“[A]

court

must

accept

contained in a complaint.”
conclusions

as

true.

as

Id.

Id.

true

all

of

the

allegations

A court need not accept legal

Legal

conclusions,

together

with

threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, do not
suffice to state a claim.

Id.

Thus, “a court considering a

motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings
that,

because

they

are

no

more

than

conclusions,

entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 679.

are

not

“While legal

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must
be supported by factual allegations.”
2 

Id.

If a complaint can

be remedied by an amendment, a district court may not dismiss
the complaint with prejudice, but must permit the amendment.
Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.
2002).

A court must liberally construe a pro se complaint.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges the following facts in her Complaint. She
has been incarcerated in Atlantic County Justice Facility for
twenty months.

(Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5.)

not furnish cleaning supplies.

The facility does

(Id. at 4.)

cold leftovers most of the time.

(Id.)

The kitchen serves

The portions of food

are not adequate, and objects are found in the food.

(Id.)

Rooms designed for one person are crowded with three or four
people, creating physical hazards such as getting cut on sharp
edges of the beds and bumping heads.

(Id.)

The showers have

black mold and mildew, which is painted over.
inmates

complain

showering.

of

dizziness

or

stomach

charged rent, and medical and dental copays.
receive

treatment.

proper
(Id.)

medical

screening,

sickness

after

(Id.)
(Id.)

evaluation

Inmates are
Inmates do
or

timely

Recreation time and visits are denied due to

3 

Most

(Id.)

The canteen engages in price gouging.

not

(Id.)

lack of manpower.

(Id.)

There is no law library; inmates may

only request legal material.
B.

(Id.)

Section 1983 claims

A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983

for

certain

violations

of

his

constitutional

rights.

Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory ...
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to 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.
Thus, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff
must allege, first, the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that the
alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting
under color of state law.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255–56 (3d
Cir. 1994).
1.

For

Fourteenth
Claim

purposes

of

Amendment

screening

the

Conditions

Complaint

of

Confinement

under

§§

1915,

1915A, the Court will assume Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee.
“[U]nder the Due Process Clause, [of the Fourteenth Amendment] a

4 

detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt
in accordance with due process of law.”
U.S.

520,

535–36

restriction
legitimate

or

condition

goal—if

permissibly

may

(1979)

it

infer

is
that

(citations
is

not

action is punishment that may not

omitted).

reasonably

arbitrary
the

Bell v. Wolfish, 441

or

purpose

“[I]f

related

purposeless—a
of

the

to

a
a

court

governmental

constitutionally be inflicted

upon detainees qua detainees.” Id. at 539.

Furthermore, when a

restriction is excessive in light of a legitimate non-punitive
purpose, it amounts to punishment under the Due Process Clause.
Stevenson v. Carroll, 495 F.3d 63, 68 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting
Rapier v. Harris, 172 F.3d 999, 1005 (7th Cir. 1999)).
In

evaluating

a

pretrial

detainee's

claim

of

unconstitutional punishment, courts must examine the totality of
the circumstances within the institution.

Id. (citing Hubbard

v. Taylor, 399 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2005)).
In
determining
whether
restrictions
or
conditions are reasonably related to the
Government's
interest
in
maintaining
security
and
order
and
operating
the
institution in a manageable fashion, courts
must
heed
our
warning
that
such
considerations are peculiarly within the
province
and
professional
expertise
of
corrections officials, and, in the absence
of substantial evidence in the record to
indicate that the officials have exaggerated
their response to these considerations,
courts should ordinarily defer to their
expert judgment in such matters.

5 

Bell, 441 U.S. at 540, n.23 (citations omitted).

The

first

question courts must ask is whether any legitimate purposes are
served by the conditions.

Hubbard, 538 F.3d at 232 (citing

Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984, 992 (3d Cir.
1983)).

Second, courts must ask whether the conditions are

rationally related to legitimate purposes.

Id.

Plaintiff has alleged a totality of circumstances within
the

Atlantic

punishment

County

under

proceed.

the
2.

Justice

Facility

Fourteenth

which

constitute

The

Amendment.

may

claim

may

Access to Courts Claim

Prisoners have a right of access to the Courts under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments.
821 (1977).

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,

However, there is no “freestanding right to a law

library or legal assistance.”
(1996).

An

adequate

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351

law

library

is

only

of

many

acceptable ways to satisfy the right of access to courts.

Diaz

v. Holder, 532 F. App’x 61, 63 (3d Cir. 2013.)

one

For example, the

right can be satisfied by appointing an attorney or providing
the assistance of paralegals.
To

state

shortcomings

a
in

claim,
the

Id.

an

inmate

library

or

must
legal

show

the

alleged

assistance

program

“hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.”
at 351.

Thus, there is an actual injury requirement for a right

of access to courts claim.

Id.
6 

Casey, 518 U.S.

Examples of actual injuries

include dismissal of a complaint or the inability to bring a
complaint due to inadequacies of the law library.

Id.

Where prisoners assert that defendants'
actions have inhibited their opportunity to
present a past legal claim, they must show
(1) that they suffered an ‘actual injury'that they lost a chance to pursue a
‘nonfrivolous'
or
‘arguable’
underlying
claim; and (2) that they have no other
‘remedy’ that may be awarded as recompense'
for the lost claim other than in the present
denial of access suit.

Monroe

v.

Beard,

536

F.3d

198,

205

(3d

Cir.

2008)

(citing

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002)).
Plaintiff’s
freestanding
library.

claim

right

fails

to

because

independent

There is not.

it

access

assumes
to

a

there

is

physical

a

law

Furthermore, Plaintiff has not pled an

injury caused by the inadequacy of legal assistance at ACJF.
This claim will be dismissed without prejudice.
3.

Personal

Involvement

in

a

Constitutional

Violation
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the personal involvement of each defendant, sued in his
or

her

Iqbal,

individual
556

U.S.

capacity,
at

676.

in

a

Here,

constitutional
Plaintiff

violation.

alleges

Warden

Geraldine Cohen condones the conditions in the Atlantic County
Justice Facility.

(Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶3(b).

Allegations of a

supervisor’s knowledge of and acquiescence in a constitutional
7 

violation

are

sufficient

to

state

a

§

1983

claim

against

a

supervisory official.

Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d

Cir.

omitted).

2005)

(citation

Therefore,

Plaintiff’s

claim

against Warden Cohen, in her individual capacity, may proceed.
Plaintiff has not alleged the personal involvement in creating
or

maintaining

the

conditions

of

confinement

in

ACJF

by

Defendants Cheryl DeBoise, Dennis Levison, or Frank Formica, in
their

individual

capacities.

Therefore,

the

claims

against

Defendants Cheryl DeBoise, Dennis Levison and Frank Formica in
their individual capacities are dismissed without prejudice.
4.

Municipal Liability

Plaintiff has named the “County Freeholders” as a defendant
in

this

action.

For

purposes

of

this

Opinion,

the

Court

construes this claim against the Board of Chosen Freeholders of
Atlantic County.
held

vicariously

In § 1983 cases, municipalities may not be
liable

for

the

actions

of

their

employees.

Monell v. Department of Social Servs. Of City of N.Y., 436 U.S.
658, 691-94 (1978) (“a local government may not be sued under §
1983

for

an

injury

inflicted

solely

by

its

employees

or

agents.”)

Municipalities may be liable when they have in place

a

or

policy

violation.
For

custom

that

directly

caused

constitutional

Id. at 694.

purposes

of

municipal

liability,

defines “policy” and “custom” as follows:
8 

a

the

Third

Circuit

A policy is made “when a decisionmaker
possess[ing] final authority to establish
municipal policy with respect to the action
issues a final proclamation, policy or
edict.” Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1212
(3d Cir.1996) (quoting Pembaur v. City of
Cincinnati,
475
U.S.
469,
481
(1986)
(plurality opinion)). A custom is an act
“that has not been formally approved by an
appropriate decisionmaker,” but that is “so
widespread as to have the force of law.”
[Bd. of County Com’rs of Bryan County, Okl.
v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)].
Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 584 (3d
Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the conditions in the
ACJF, individually or as a whole, result from a policy or custom
of

the

county.

Freeholders

of

The

claim(s)

Atlantic

against

County

will

the
be

Board

of

dismissed

Chosen
without

prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
For

the

reasons

discussed

above,

the

Court

grants

Plaintiff’s IFP application and proceeds Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment claim against Warden Geraldine Cohen in her individual
capacity, and dismisses the remainder of the complaint without
prejudice.
An appropriate order follows.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Dated: April 10, 2017

9