WILSON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/31/2018. (rss,n.m. )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
DAVID WILSON,
Plaintiff
v.
NEW JERSEY DEP’T OF CORR.,
et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIV. NO. 18-9591 (RMB)
OPINION
BUMB, DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff David Wilson, a prisoner presently confined at
Bayside State Prison in Leesburg, New Jersey brings this civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
(ECF No. 1-3), which establishes his eligibility to proceed without
prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
When a prisoner is permitted to proceed without prepayment of
the filing fee or when the prisoner pays the filing fee for a civil
action and seeks redress from a governmental entity, officer or
employee of a governmental entity, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B);
1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) require courts to review the
complaint 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,
Plaintiff’s complaint may proceed against Warden John Powell,
Commissioner Gary Lanigan, and the John Doe Defendants and the
claim against the New Jersey Department of Corrections is dismissed
with 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)). Thus, “a pro se complaint,
however
inartfully
standards
than
pleaded,
formal
must
pleadings
be
held
to
drafted
by
‘less
stringent
lawyers.’”
Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Court personnel reviewing pro
se pleadings are charged 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)).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
2
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, 570 (2007)). “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.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.) 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, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at
679. “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.
DISCUSSION
A.
The Complaint
Plaintiff alleges Warden John Powell at Bayside State Prison,
Commissioner
Gary
Lanigan
of
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Corrections, John Doe Defendants, and the New Jersey Department of
Corrections were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety
3
by refusing to do anything about the dangerous level of asbestos
and nonfunctioning ventilation system in Bayside State Prison that
caused Plaintiff to develop a constant cough, which he fears may
damage his future health.
B.
Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
A plaintiff may assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for 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....
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, and that the constitutional deprivation
was caused by a person acting under color of state law. West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1998); Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560,
563 (3d Cir. 2011).
C.
The New Jersey Department of Corrections
A suit against a state’s Department of Corrections is barred
by sovereign immunity of the Eleventh Amendment. Quern v. Jordan,
4
440 U.S. 332, 340 (1979) (quotations omitted). “Section 1983 does
not abrogate states' immunity … and the State of New Jersey has
not consented to suit in federal court.” Green v. New Jersey, 625
F. App'x 73, 75 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Quern, 440 U.S. at 340–
41)). The § 1983 claims against the New Jersey Department of
Corrections are dismissed with prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Plaintiff’s
IFP
application,
permits
the
Eighth
Amendment
conditions
of
confinement claims against Warden John Powell and Commissioner
Gary Lanigan to proceed, and dismisses the claim against the New
Jersey Department of Corrections with prejudice, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).
An appropriate order follows.
DATE: October 31, 2018
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
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?