ARCHIE v. SMITH et al

Filing 28

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/10/2022. (rtm, )(nm)

Case 1:20-cv-07649-NLH-AMD Document 28 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 138

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SHAWN ARCHIE,

No. 20-cv-7649 (NLH) (AMD)

Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION

CHARLES WARREN, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCE:
Shawn Archie
000974313G
Southern State Correctional Facility
4295 Route 47
Delmont, NJ 08314
Plaintiff Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
On November 25, 2020, this Court dismissed without
prejudice Plaintiff Shawn Archie’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
against Cumberland County Jail (“CCJ”) officials.

ECF No. 14.

Plaintiff was granted leave to amend, id., and has now filed an
amended complaint alleging denial of medical care and due
process violations related to the novel coronavirus COVID-19
pandemic.

ECF No. 27.

The Court has reviewed the amended complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and will permit it to proceed in part.

1

Case 1:20-cv-07649-NLH-AMD Document 28 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 139

I.

BACKGROUND
In late 2019 to late 2020, Plaintiff was a pretrial

detainee at the CCJ.

During that time, Dr. Alan Dias refused to

provide Plaintiff with medical treatment for an injured shoulder
and a sinus infection that deteriorated into a staph infection.
ECF No. 27 at 1-2.

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff was finally

sent to get an MRI of his October 9, 2019 shoulder injury.
at 2.

Id.

Later that week, the officer who transported Plaintiff to

and from the MRI appointment tested positive for COVID-19.

Id.

Plaintiff states he was ill from March 17, 2020 to March 21,
2020 but was not tested for COVID-19.

Id.

He was quarantined

on or about March 26, 2020, but Dr. Dias refused Plaintiff’s
requests for COVID-19 tests.

Id.

Plaintiff further alleges CCJ Director of Medicine Kristina
Smith “violated my privacy concerning my health condition when
she deliberately lied to defendant Victor Bermudez concerning me
being positive for the Corona virus [sic].”

Id. at 3.

“Defendant being in charge of my medical records, knowing that I
had not been tested for the COVID-19 virus (as evidenced in the
medical records), knew this information before making up such a
deliberate and reckless disregard for my well-being with the
lie.”

Id.

He also claims Officer Bermudez violated his medical

privacy by telling other inmates that Plaintiff had tested
positive for COVID-19.

Id. at 3-4.
2

Case 1:20-cv-07649-NLH-AMD Document 28 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 140

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Amendments to pleadings are governed by Federal Civil

Procedure Rule 15, which provides that the Court “should freely
give leave when justice so requires.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

The Third Circuit has shown a strong liberality in allowing
amendments under Rule 15 in order to ensure that claims will be
decided on the merits rather than on technicalities.

Dole v.

Arco Chemical Co., 921 F.2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990); Bechtel v.
Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989).

An amendment must

be permitted in the absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory
motive, unfair prejudice, or futility of amendment.

Grayson v.

Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

Assessing a proposed

amended complaint for futility is the same as applying the Rule
12(b)(6) standard.

Brookman v. Township of Hillside, 2018 WL

4350278, at *2 (D.N.J. 2018) (citing In re NAHC, Inc. Sec.
Litig., 306 F.3d 1314, 1332 (3d Cir. 2002) (“An amendment would
be futile when ‘the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.’”)).
III. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the proposed amended complaint and
concludes that it would not be futile to permit amendment.
R. Civ. P. 15(a).
amended complaint.

The Clerk shall be instructed to file the
The Court must also review the amended
3

Fed.

Case 1:20-cv-07649-NLH-AMD Document 28 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 141

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires a
court to review complaints prior to service in cases in which a
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a
claim, the complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to
show that the claim is facially plausible.
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009).

Fowler v. UPMC
“‘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.’”

Fair Wind

Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

“[A]

pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
A.

Violation of Medical Privacy
Plaintiff argues Kristina Smith and Victor Bermudez

violated his medical privacy by spreading false news that he
tested positive for COVID-19.

The Court dismissed this claim

from Plaintiff’s original complaint for failure to state a
claim, ECF No. 14, and nothing in the amended complaint changes
that outcome.

“An individual has a constitutional right to

privacy which protects ‘the individual interest in avoiding
4

Case 1:20-cv-07649-NLH-AMD Document 28 Filed 01/10/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 142

disclosure of personal matters.’

We have long recognized the

right to privacy in one’s medical information . . . .”

Doe v.

Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 315 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Whalen v. Roe,
429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977)).

That being said, “a prisoner does

not enjoy a right of privacy in his medical information to the
same extent as a free citizen. . . .

[Plaintiff’s]

constitutional right is subject to substantial restrictions and
limitations in order for correctional officials to achieve
legitimate correctional goals and maintain institutional
security.”

Id.

The Third Circuit has yet to define the parameters of a
prisoner’s right to privacy in his medical information, but
courts construing prisoner’s medical privacy claims have framed
the right narrowly and have applied it to situations involving
“an unusual medical condition which, if disclosed unnecessarily,
would likely expose the inmate to ridicule, discrimination, or
even potential violence and harm, particularly when word of the
condition is likely to spread through ‘humor or gossip[.]’”
Smith v. Hayman, No. 09-2602, 2012 WL 1079634, at *18 (D.N.J.
Mar. 30, 2012) (quoting Powell v. Shriver, 175 F.3d 107, 112–13
(2d Cir. 1999)), aff’d, Smith, 489 F. App’x 544 (alteration in
original).

Cf. Vines v. Columbus House et al., No. 13-3923,

2017 WL 2539409, at *14 (D.N.J. June 12, 2017) (holding
plaintiff did not state claim for disclosure of asthma, back
5

Case 1:20-cv-07649-NLH-AMD Document 28 Filed 01/10/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 143

problems, high blood pressure, and allergies to mold, dust,
spray chemicals, and smoke).

As the Court noted in its prior

opinion, COVID-19 is not “an unusual medical condition” in this
day and age, and disclosure of potential COVID-19 exposure
serves a legitimate penological interest in protecting the
health and safety of prison staff and inmates alike.
at 5-6.

ECF No. 13

The Court will dismiss the claims against Kristina

Smith and Victor Bermudez.
B.

Denial of Medical Care
Petitioner also alleges Defendant Dias denied him medical

care on several occasions.

Plaintiff’s claims technically fall

under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause as he was a
pretrial detainee at the time of the alleged violations, but
“the Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment
affords pretrial detainees protections ‘at least as great as the
Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner,’
without deciding whether the Fourteenth Amendment provides
greater protections.”

Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr. Facility, 318

F.3d 575, 581 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting City of Revere v.
Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983)).

The Court

will therefore review Plaintiff’s claims under the same standard
used to evaluate similar claims brought under the Eighth

6

Case 1:20-cv-07649-NLH-AMD Document 28 Filed 01/10/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 144

Amendment.

Moore v. Luffey, 767 F. App’x 335, 340 (3d Cir.

2019).1
To state an Eighth Amendment Claim, a plaintiff must allege
facts indicating that defendants were deliberately indifferent
to his or her serious medical need.
97, 104 (1976).

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

To accomplish this, “a plaintiff must make (1)

a subjective showing that ‘the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to [his or her] medical needs’ and (2) an objective
showing that ‘those needs were serious.’”

Pearson v. Prison

Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 534 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Rouse v.
Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (second alteration in
original)).

The Third Circuit has found deliberate indifference

“‘where the prison official (1) knows of a prisoner’s need for
medical treatment but intentionally refuses to provide it; (2)
delays necessary medical treatment based on a non-medical
reason; or (3) prevents a prisoner from receiving needed or
recommended medical treatment.’”

Parkell v. Danberg, 833 F.3d

313, 337 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Rouse, 182 F.3d at 197).

The Supreme Court has applied an “objectively unreasonable”
standard to analyze an excessive force claim under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389,
398 (2015). However, the Third Circuit has declined to address
whether the “objectively unreasonable” standard applies to a
deliberate indifference to medical need analysis. Moore, 767 F.
App’x at 340 n.2.
1

7

Case 1:20-cv-07649-NLH-AMD Document 28 Filed 01/10/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 145

Accepting the facts alleged in the amended complaint as
true and giving Plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable
inferences, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has
satisfactorily alleged Defendant Dias denied him adequate
medical care.
C.

The Court shall permit this claim to proceed.

Conditions of Confinement
Finally, Plaintiff alleges former Warden Charles Warren and

former Warden Richard Smith created unconstitutional conditions
of confinement.

He alleges Defendant Warren failed to supervise

CCJ staff “when it came to following proper procedures, as well
as proper protocol dealing with the pandemic/COVID-19 epidemic.
Defendant ignored all warnings in January by C.D.C, ACLU, and
government officials as to the precautions that needed to be
taken as well as the severity and eminent [sic] danger that this
virus would bring.”

ECF No. 27 at 1.

The Court will permit this claim to proceed against
Defendant Warren.

As the amended complaint makes no factual

allegations against former Warden Smith, he shall be dismissed
without prejudice.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant the

motion to amend and direct the Clerk to file the amended
complaint.

ECF No. 27.

The claims against Kristina Smith,

Victor Bermudez, and Richard Smith shall be dismissed without
8

Case 1:20-cv-07649-NLH-AMD Document 28 Filed 01/10/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 146

prejudice.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The claims against

Defendants Warren and Dias may proceed.
An appropriate order follows.

Dated: January 10, 2022
At Camden, New Jersey

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

9