STUKES v. COHEN et al

Filing 9

OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 8/20/2018. (dmr)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SHAUN STUKES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN GERALDINE COHEN, et al.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civ. No. 17-2225 (RBK) (JS)

OPINION

ROBERT B. KUGLER, U.S.D.J.
I.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is the civil rights complaint of Plaintiff, Shaun Stukes, brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has previously been granted in forma pauperis status
in this matter. (ECF No. 8). This Court is required to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under this statute, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims if they are
frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune. For the reasons explained below, the Court will permit
Plaintiff’s complaint to proceed in part, and will dismiss it in part.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The allegations of this complaint will be construed as true for purposes of this screening

opinion. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendants Warden Geraldine Cohen,
Atlantic County Justice Facility (“ACJF”), and CFG Health Systems, LLC (“CFG”). (See ECF
No. 1). Plaintiff’s allegations arise from conduct that occurred while he was incarcerated at the
ACJF as a pretrial detainee.

Plaintiff alleges that after he was shot in his legs, thighs and foot, he was placed under
arrest and brought to ACJF after being transferred from AtlantaCare Regional Medical Center.
(ECF No. 1 at 4). Once there, Plaintiff states that CFG persistently denied him medical care,
despite him having submitted over twenty medical complaints. (Id.). He further states that in
February of 2017, he had an infection that reached the bone in his leg, which forced him to
undergo emergency surgery. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Warden Geraldine Cohen was told at
least ten times of Plaintiff’s leg infection, and his excruciating pain. (Id.). He also states that
Warden Cohen ordered specific treatment be withheld from him, under the pretense that
Plaintiff’s required medical procedure was too costly. (Id.).
III.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), district courts are required to review

civil actions in which a prisoner proceeds in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
When reviewing such actions, the PLRA instructs courts to dismiss cases that are at any time
frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune. Id. “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x
120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the applicable provisions of the PLRA
apply to the screening of his Amended Complaint. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic

2

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. In order to survive a dismissal for
failure to state a claim, a complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter to show that the claim is
facially plausible.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A Plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that “each Governmentofficial defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”
Id. at 676. Furthermore, while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, they “still must allege
sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d
239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
IV.

ANALYSIS
The Court considers Plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 . . . .
To recover under this provision, two elements must be shown. First, a plaintiff “must
establish that the defendant acted under color of state law,” and second, that the plaintiff has been
deprived of “a right secured by the Constitution.” Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir.
2011) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).

3

A. Claims against Atlantic County Justice Facility
Plaintiff has named the ACJF as a defendant in his complaint. A jail, however, is not a
“person” amenable to suit under § 1983. See Seagraves v. Treachler, No. 15-7801, 2016 WL
1223300, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Grabow v. S. State Corr. Facility, 726 F. Supp. 537,
538-39 (D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility is not a “person” under § 1983)); Parrish v. Ocean
Cnty. Jail, No. 13–2020, 2013 WL 5554687, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 20, 2013) (finding that Ocean
County Jail is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Accordingly, the Court will
dismiss with prejudice all claims against ACJF.
B. Claims against CFG Health Systems
Plaintiff asserts a claim against CFG for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. (ECF No. 1 at 5). Stated differently, because Plaintiff has not identified specific employees
of CFG, he appears to allege that CFG is liable on the basis of respondeat superior, for the
deliberate indifference of its employees towards Plaintiff's medical needs.
Under § 1983, a private corporation contracted by a prison to provide healthcare for
inmates cannot be held liable on the theory of respondeat superior. See Weigher v. Prison Health
Servs., 402 F. App’x 668, 669–70 (3d Cir. 2010) (noting that a private corporation providing
medical service at a state correctional facility cannot be held liable under a theory of respondeat
superior in a § 1983 suit). Instead, pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.
658, 690–92 (1978), a private corporation can be held liable for constitutional violations only if it
has a custom or policy exhibiting deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs.
See Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583–84 (3d Cir. 2003).
Here, no such custom or policy is specifically alleged by Plaintiff with respect to CFG.
Instead, Plaintiff alleges only that CFG was deliberately indifferent to his medical complaints and

4

failed to provide him treatment. Without facts establishing that the alleged deliberate indifference
stems from a specific policy, Plaintiff cannot proceed on this claim. Accordingly, claims as to
CFG will be dismissed without prejudice.
C. Claims against Warden Cohen
Plaintiff alleges that he “advised” Warden Cohen “at least ten times” that he was in
“excruciating pain” and that his “leg was infected.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) He also states that Warden
Cohen “ordered specific treatment withheld under the pretense that the needed medical procedure
was too costly.” (See ECF No. 1 at 4).
It is well established that “[a] defendant in a civil rights action must have personal
involvement in the alleged wrongs to be liable and cannot be held responsible for a constitutional
violation which he or she neither participated in nor approved.” Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d
187, 210 (3d Cir. 2007). The Third Circuit has explained that if a prisoner is under the care of
medical experts, a non-medical prison official cannot be deliberately indifferent for failing to
respond to an inmate’s medical complaints, “absent a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that
prison doctors or their assistants are mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner”.1 Spruill v. Gillis, 372
F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004). This is because “[i]f a prisoner is under the care of medical experts
. . . a non-medical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in
capable hands.” Id. Here, while Plaintiff received medical care from CFG, Plaintiff contends that
he advised Warden Cohen numerous times of his excruciating pain and infection. He also appears
to allege that Warden Cohen was personally involved in decision making related to his medical

1

While Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, and his claim is evaluated under the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is appropriate to evaluate a plaintiff’s “Fourteenth
Amendment claim for inadequate medical care under the standard used to evaluate similar claims
brought under the Eighth Amendment”. Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575,
581 (3d Cir. 2003).
5

treatment, by denying him a specific medical procedure. These facts, taken as true, are sufficient
at this stage to state a claim against Warden Cohen for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical
needs. He indicates that Warden Cohen was both aware and personally involved in his alleged
inadequate medical treatment.

Accordingly, the Court will permit Plaintiff’s deliberate

indifference claims as to Warden Cohen to proceed.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s § 1983

claim against the Atlantic County Justice Facility, and will dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s §
1983 claims against CFG Health Systems, LLC. The Court will permit Plaintiff’s deliberate
indifference claims to proceed against Warden Geraldine Cohen. An appropriate order follows.

Dated: August 20, 2018

s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge

6