HANNAH v. ADMINISTRATOR ALBERT C. WAGNER YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

Filing 65

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/18/2020. (rtm, )(nm)

Case 1:17-cv-08066-NLH-JS Document 65 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1063

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
:
ADMINISTRATOR
:
ALBERT C. WAGNER YOUTH
:
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,:
:
Defendants.
:
:
______________________________:
KARON HANNAH,

Civ. No. 17-8066 (NLH) (JS)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey
Kathryn M. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General
Michael Vomacka, Deputy Attorney General
Office of the New Jersey Attorney General
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
PO Box 116
Trenton, NJ 08625
Counsel for Defendants Mark Goodson, Matthew Smith, Craig
LaFontaine, Gregory McLaughlin, Marisol Velazquez, and Joseph
Guicheteau
Karon Hannah
777077/863299D
East Jersey State Prison
Lock Bag R
Rahway, NJ 07065
Plaintiff pro se

Case 1:17-cv-08066-NLH-JS Document 65 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 1064

HILLMAN, District Judge
The Court previously denied a motion for partial summary
judgment filed by Defendants Mark Goodson, Matthew Smith, Craig
LaFontaine, Gregory McLaughlin, Marisol Velazquez, and Joseph
Guicheteau that alleged Plaintiff Karon Hannah failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies.

ECF No. 56.

renewed their motion with leave of Court.
Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Defendants have
ECF No. 57.

ECF No. 61.

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the second
motion for partial summary judgment.
I.

BACKGROUND
The Court adopts the background and statement of facts set

forth in its opinion denying Defendants’ first motion for
partial summary judgment, ECF No. 55 at 2-3, adding only those
facts necessary to address Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff
did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his
complaint.
After the assault on November 28, 2016, Plaintiff was
placed into Albert C. Wagner Youth Facility’s (“AWYCF”) “lockup” for 22 days.

Plaintiff asserts he submitted numerous

grievances during that time “and he got no response, prison
officials simply ignored grievances and refused to process them
. . . .”

ECF No. 61 at 6.

Plaintiff was transferred to New

Jersey State Prison (“NJSP”) on December 19, 2016.
2

Amended

Case 1:17-cv-08066-NLH-JS Document 65 Filed 12/18/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 1065

Declaration of Amy Emich (“Emich Dec.”), ECF No. 57-5 ¶ 2.

On

December 1, 2016, a grievance was entered into the JPAY
electronic system: 1 “I have been asaulted [sic] badly and I
needto [sic] be seen as soon as possible please I still have not
seen the doctor or nobody come see me please.”
14.

Id.; ECF No. 57-

Nancy Zook responded on December 5, 2016: “You were

interviewed regarding the matter on 12/2, and the issues is
being reviewed.

Additionally, you were medically assessed.”

ECF No. 57-14.
Plaintiff submitted written Inmate Inquiry form #292832 on
December 13, 2016: “On this Day, coming back from watching the
video relating to the attempted assault I was charged with
(which shows me doing nothing) the camera prooves [sic] it.”
ECF No. 57-13 at 3.

Lori Reed entered the grievance into the

electronic JPAY system on December 15, 2016.

Id. at 2.

On

December 20, Ms. Zook closed the form and stated, “this matter
is already being addressed, the grievance is repetitive.”

Id.

On March 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed an electronic grievance
via JPAY stating he was assaulted on November 28, 2016 by
officers at AWYCF.

ECF No. 57-7 at 27.

1

Plaintiff concluded by

Plaintiff denies he submitted this grievance. ECF No. 61 at 6.
This factual dispute does not impact the Court’s decision as the
Court denies summary judgment on the basis of the grievances
filed on the written forms during the 22 days Plaintiff was in
lock-up.
3

Case 1:17-cv-08066-NLH-JS Document 65 Filed 12/18/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 1066

saying “I have brung this to the administrator attention before
at albert.c wagner before this occurred which he ignored and
failed to react to my [safety] problem im seeking civil justice
and money damages!

my 8th admendment, violated!”

Id.

NJSP

officials closed the grievances after telling Plaintiff “NJSP
Administration cannot assist you in receiving ‘money damages’.”
Id.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment should be granted when the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and
affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

A disputed

fact is material when it could affect the outcome of the suit
under the governing substantive law.
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

A dispute is genuine if the

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
for the non-moving party.

Id. at 250.

The Court should view

the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
and make all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.

Hugh

v. Butler County Family YMCA, 418 F.3d 265, 267 (3d Cir. 2005).
Initially, the moving party must show the absence of a
genuine issue concerning any material fact.
v. Carrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
4

See Celotex Corp.

Once the moving party has

Case 1:17-cv-08066-NLH-JS Document 65 Filed 12/18/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 1067

satisfied its burden, the non-moving party, “must present
affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported
motion for summary judgment.”

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257.

“While the evidence that the non-moving party presents may be
either direct or circumstantial, and need not be as great as a
preponderance, the evidence must be more than a scintilla.”
Hugh, 418 F.3d at 267 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251).
If the court determines that “the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier or fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
587 (1986) (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv.
Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).

Rule 56 mandates the entry of

summary judgment against the party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to
that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden
of proof at trial.

Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.

III. DISCUSSION
Defendants renew their motion for summary judgment on the
grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”).

“Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense the

defendant must plead and prove; it is not a pleading requirement
for the prisoner-plaintiff.”

Small v. Camden Cty., 728 F.3d
5

Case 1:17-cv-08066-NLH-JS Document 65 Filed 12/18/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 1068

265, 268 (3d Cir. 2013); see also Green v. Parisi, 478 F.2d 313,
315 (3d Cir. 1973) (defendants asserting an affirmative defense
must prove it “by a preponderance of the evidence”).
A district court may decide whether plaintiffs exhausted
their administrative remedies without a jury, even if there are
disputed facts, after providing notice to the parties and an
opportunity to submit further evidence.

Paladino v. Newsome,

885 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2018); Small, 728 F.3d at 270.

The

Court gave such notice and opportunity when it permitted
Defendants to refile their motion and permitted both parties to
submit additional evidence.

ECF No. 55 at 11.

Having reviewed the record and additional submissions, the
Court concludes Defendants have not proven a preponderance of
the evidence that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies.

Plaintiff submitted copies of Inmate Inquiry Forms he

claims to have filed while held in AWYCF’s lock-up.
at 33-40.

ECF No. 61

grievances.

He states he never received a response to these
Id. at 6, 14.

He states these grievances were

handed directly to correction officers, id. at 6, which is
permitted in the AWYCF Handbook for inmates in close custody,
ECF No. 57-6 at 79.
Relying on Plaintiff’s failure to appeal the March 26, 2017
grievance, Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not exhaust any
grievance related to the assault.
6

However, they did not address

Case 1:17-cv-08066-NLH-JS Document 65 Filed 12/18/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 1069

Plaintiff’s claim that grievances filed at AWYCF went
unanswered; instead, they assert it is irrelevant whether
Plaintiff was able to access the grievance system during his
time in lock-up because he was able to file the March 26
grievance at NJSP.

ECF No. 64 at 7-8.

The grievances in question are completely illegible.

The

Court can see faint handwriting, but it cannot tell what was
written on the documents.

ECF No. 61 at 33-40.

However, the

Court must give Plaintiff, the non-moving party, the benefit of
the doubt as there is nothing in the record to definitively
contradict his claim that the documents concern the November
2016 assault.

“In considering a motion for summary judgment, a

district court may not make credibility determinations or engage
in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving party's
evidence ‘is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are
to be drawn in his favor.’”

Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358

F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)).

“[W]hile it is possible that

[Plaintiff] misrepresented the facts when he testified that he
filed forms . . ., it is equally possible that he did not.
Indeed, it is not unheard of for a grievance form to be lost.”
Paladino, 885 F.3d at 210.
Prisoners are not required to exhaust unavailable remedies.
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856 (2016).
7

A prison’s remedy

Case 1:17-cv-08066-NLH-JS Document 65 Filed 12/18/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 1070

system is “unavailable” under the PLRA if officials fail to
timely respond to grievances.

Robinson v. Superintendent

Rockview SCI, 831 F.3d 148, 155 (3d Cir. 2016).

If Plaintiff

properly filed grievances about his November 2016 assault while
at AWYCF and Defendants did not respond, he has exhausted all
remedies that were available to him.

Plaintiff’s decision to

file an additional grievance after his transfer to NJSP and
“pursue his claim through the remainder of a belated
administrative process does not rectify the prison’s errors.”
Id. at 154 (holding prison remedies were unavailable when prison
did not respond to grievance within the time set in handbook).
The Court finds Defendants have not shown they are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the exhaustion
question because it remains plausible that Plaintiff filed
grievances that went unanswered.

The Court declines to hold a

hearing on the issue as Defendants had the opportunity to submit
additional materials and did not address the substance of those
grievances.

The motion for summary judgment will be denied.

8

Case 1:17-cv-08066-NLH-JS Document 65 Filed 12/18/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 1071

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny

Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment.

The denial is

without prejudice to Defendants’ ability to seek summary
judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.
An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: December 18, 2020
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

9