HARRIS v. WARDEN ATLANTIC COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITY
Filing
4
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/23/2017. (tf, n.m.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
WALI A. HARRIS,
Civ. No. 17-3483 (RMB)
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION
WARDEN, ATLANTIC COUNTY JUSTICE
FACILITY,
Defendant.
BUMB, District Judge
Plaintiff Wali A. Harris brings this civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Geraldine Cohen, alleging
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Atlantic County
Justice Facility.
application
to
establishes
(Compl., ECF No. 1.)
proceed
his
prepayment of fees.
in
financial
forma
Plaintiff has filed an
pauperis
eligibility
to
(“IFP”),
proceed
which
without
(IFP App., ECF No. 1-1.)
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) require courts to
review a prisoner’s complaint in a civil action and sua sponte
dismiss any claims that are (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fail
to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant
the IFP application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
I.
Sua Sponte Dismissal
Courts must liberally construe pleadings that are filed pro
se.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
however
inartfully
standards
than
pleaded,
formal
must
pleadings
be
se
pleadings
are
charged
held
drafted
(internal quotation marks omitted).
pro
Thus, “a pro se complaint,
to
by
‘less
stringent
lawyers.’”
Id.
“Court personnel reviewing
with
the
responsibility
of
deciphering why the submission was filed, what the litigant is
seeking, and what claims she may be making.”
See Higgs v. Atty.
Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339-40 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting
Jonathan D. Rosenbloom, Exploring Methods to Improve Management
and Fairness in Pro Se Cases: A Study of the Pro Se Docket in
the Southern District of New York, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 305, 308
(2002)).
Under
28
U.S.C.
§
1915(e)(2)(B),
district
courts
must
review complaints filed by persons proceeding in forma pauperis
in civil actions, and dismiss any claim that is frivolous or
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.
A pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
2
relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
dismiss,
a
complaint
must
contain
“To survive a motion to
sufficient
factual
matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’”
(quoting
Bell
(2007)).
pleads
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
Atlantic
Corp.
v.
Twombly,
550
U.S.
544,
570
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
factual
reasonable
content
inference
misconduct alleged.”
“[A]
court
that
that
allows
the
the
court
defendant
is
to
the
for
liable
draw
the
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.)
must
accept
contained in a complaint[.]”
as
true
Id.
all
of
the
allegations
Legal conclusions, together
with threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
do
not
suffice
to
considering
a
identifying
pleadings
state
motion
to
a
claim.
dismiss
that,
because
Id.
can
Thus,
choose
they
are
to
no
“a
begin
more
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.”
at 679.
court
by
than
Id.
“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a
complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.”
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).
II.
DISCUSSSION
3
Plaintiff
seeks
monetary
damages
for
alleged
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, including black mold
in the showers, poor ventilation system, and food “not worthy of
consumption.”
these
(Compl., ECF No. 1.)
conditions
from
February
complaint on May 16, 2017.
When
a
pretrial
22,
Plaintiff was exposed to
2017
until
he
filed
the
(Id., ¶4.)
detainee
alleges
unconstitutional
conditions of confinement in violation of the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
has set forth a two-step test to analyze the claim.
Hubbard v.
Taylor (“Hubbard I”), 399 F.3d 150, 159-60 (3d Cir. 2005).
[W]e must ask, first, whether any legitimate
purposes are served by these conditions, and
second,
whether
these
conditions
are
rationally related to these purposes. In
assessing
whether
the
conditions
are
reasonably related to the assigned purposes,
we must further inquire as to whether these
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.” [Union
County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono,] 713 F.2d
[984], 992 [3d Cir. 1983] (citing Bell [v.
Wolfish], 441 U.S. [520] 542, 99 S.Ct. 1861
[1979]) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our inquiry into whether given conditions
constitute
“punishment”
must
therefore
consider
the
totality
of
circumstances
within an institution. Id. at 996; see also
Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1368 (5th
Cir.1981)
(“In
determining
whether
conditions
of
confinement
are
unconstitutional under ... the fourteenth
amendment, we do not assay separately each
4
of the institutional practices, but look to
the totality of the conditions.”), overruled
in part on other grounds, Int'l Woodworkers
of America, AFL–CIO v. Champion Int'l Corp.,
790 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir.1986) (en banc).
Id.
Unconstitutional punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment
has objective and subjective components.
Stevenson v. Carroll,
295
subjective
F.3d
62,
68
(3d
Cir.
2007).
The
component,
whether the defendant prison official acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind, is met where the condition is arbitrary
or purposeless or the condition is excessive, even if it would
accomplish
a
legitimate
governmental
objective.
Id.
The
objective component is met where the prison conditions cause
inmates
to
“endure
genuine
extended period of time.”
privations
and
hardship
over
an
Bell, 441 U.S. at 542.
The fact that an individual is temporarily exposed to mold,
poor
ventilation,
and
food
characterized
as
“unworthy
of
consumption,” without further explanation, does not rise to the
level
of
a
genuine
period of time.
privation
and
hardship
over
an
extended
See Fantone v. Herbik, 528 F. App’x 123, 127
(3d Cir. 2013) (“[o]nly extreme deprivations are sufficient to
present a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement”)
(citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992)); Khaliq v.
Brown, 2005 WL 2406099, at *10 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2005) (“the
fact that food ... sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant,
5
does not amount to a constitutional deprivation” (quoting Hamm
v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985).
To state a constitutional violation, Plaintiff must allege
facts
suggesting
the
conditions
of
confinement
enough to deprive him of a basic human need.
were
severe
Wilson v. Seiter,
501 U.S. 294, 305 (1991); See Riley v. DeCarlo, 532 F. App’x 23,
26 (3d Cir. 2013) (ventilation system was not constitutionally
inadequate where record showed officials performed maintenance
of ducts, Plaintiff was treated for allergies and congestion,
but his lungs were clear.)
by
further
describing
If Plaintiff can meet this standard
the
conditions
of
confinement
and
identifying a basic human need he was deprived of, Plaintiff may
file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff should also indicate how
the warden became aware of the conditions and was deliberately
indifferent to the risk to Plaintiff’s health.
note
that
when
an
amended
complaint
is
Plaintiff should
filed,
it
should
be
complete in itself because it replaces the original complaint.
See 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 1476
(2d ed. 1990).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court will
reopen the matter if Plaintiff files an amended complaint within
the time allotted by the Court.
6
An appropriate order follows.
DATE:
October 23, 2017
s/Renée Marie Bumb__________
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States 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?