MUHAMMAD v. MACK et al
Filing
34
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/3/2019. (tf, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
YUSUF ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD,
:
:
Plaintiff,
: Civ. No. 18-3452 (NLH)(AMD)
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
:
G. MACK, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________________:
APPEARANCES:
Yusuf Abdullah Muhammad
430637B/1102980
Bayside State Prison
PO Box F-1
Leesburg, NJ 08327
Plaintiff Pro se
Gurbir S. Grewal, New Jersey Attorney General
Kevin John Dronson, Deputy Attorney General
State of New Jersey
Office of the Attorney General
25 Market Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
Attorneys for Defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff Yusuf Abdullah Muhammad, presently incarcerated
in Bayside State Prison, Leesburg, New Jersey, filed this
complaint under 42 U.S.C § 1983.
ECF No. 1.
Defendants now
move for partial dismissal of the complaint, arguing that
Plaintiff has failed to state claims against them in their
official capacities and for declaratory relief.
ECF No. 33.
Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the motion.
For the
reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the complaint on March 12, 2018, alleging
that Defendants Mack and John Does 1-3 assaulted Plaintiff in
his cell in Mid-State Correctional Facility on February 2, 2018.
ECF No. 1 at 8-9.
He further alleged Defendants Mack and John
Doe Medical Director failed to intervene in this assault.
at 9.
Id.
Plaintiff asserts he was denied medical care afterwards.
Id. at 11.
The Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and permitted it to proceed in full.
ECF No. 5.
The Clerk entered default against Defendants on October 5,
2018.
Defendants moved to set aside the default on January 21,
2019.
ECF No. 29.
March 25, 2019.
The Court granted the unopposed motion on
ECF No. 32.
Defendants now move to partially dismiss the complaint.
ECF No. 33.
They argue they are immune from suit in their
official capacities and that Plaintiff is not entitled to
declaratory relief.
Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the
motion.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court
2
must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as
true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.
A motion to dismiss may be granted only if the plaintiff
has failed to set forth fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests that make such a claim plausible on
its face.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Although Rule 8 does not require “detailed factual allegations,”
it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must
“tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state
a claim.
Second, it should identify allegations that, because
they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth.
Finally, [w]hen there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity
and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief.”
Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d
780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (alterations in original) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
“[A] complaint's
allegations of historical fact continue to enjoy a highly
favorable standard of review at the motion-to-dismiss stage of
proceedings.”
Id. at 790.
3
B.
Analysis
Plaintiff filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In
order to set forth a prima facie case under § 1983, a plaintiff
must show: “(1) a person deprived him of a federal right; and
(2) the person who deprived him of that right acted under color
of state or territorial law.”
Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47
F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S.
635, 640 (1980)).
Generally, for purposes of actions under §
1983, “[t]he term ‘persons' includes local and state officers
acting under color of state law.”
Carver v. Foerster, 102 F.3d
96, 99 (3d Cir. 1996) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21
(1991)).
“Person” is not strictly limited to individuals who are
state and local government employees.
For example,
municipalities and other local government units, such as
counties, also are considered “persons” for purposes of § 1983.
See Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690–91
(1978).
A State, agency, or an official of the State acting in
his or her official capacity, is not a “person” within the
meaning of § 1983, however.
See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Rather, a suit against a public
official in their official capacity “‘is a suit against the
official’s office . . . .’”
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S.
898, 930–31 (1997) (quoting Will, 491 U.S. at 71).
4
Because
Defendants are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983 in
their official capacities, the official capacity claims must be
dismissed.
The individual capacity claims may proceed.
Defendants also move for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for
declaratory relief.
“The purpose of a declaratory judgment is
to ‘declare the rights of litigants.’
definition prospective in nature.”
The remedy is thus by
CMR D.N. Corp. v. City of
Phila., 703 F.3d 612, 628 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Wilton v.
Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995)).
Plaintiff “cannot
obtain declaratory relief for past alleged wrongs.”
Bledsoe, 560 F. App’x 157, 159 (3d Cir. 2014).
Capozzi v.
Plaintiff does
not request prospective relief, only monetary damages for past
injuries.
A declaratory judgment is not available for this
purpose.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for partial dismissal
is granted.
An appropriate order will be entered.
Dated: December 3, 2019
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
5
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?