BARBER v. CHRISTIE et al

Filing 5

OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/7/2010. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RONALD JAMES BARBER,
Plaintiff,

OPINION CHRIS CHRISTIE,

et al., Defendants.

APPEARANCES: RONALD JAMES BARBER, JR., #000104 South House Special Treatment Unit ON -905

Plaintiff oro se

Avenel,
CHESLER,

New Jersey 07001

District Judge Ronald James Barber, an involuntarily committed (`SVPA"), forma

Plaintiff,

person pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act N.J.S.A. pauperis. 30:4-27.24, et

seeks to bring this action

Based on his affidavit of indigence,

the Court will

grant plaintiff's application to procee d ("IFP")
CrP mf

forma pauperis (1998) and order the

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
t
f]

§ 1915(a)

r5. Cnnpl.r

At this tine, to 28 U.S.C.

the Court must review the Complaint,

pursuant

§ 1915(e) (2),

to determine whether it should be

Plaonto:f fiLed an aduenoum to nos Compi aint on or about April 29, 2010. See Docket entry no. 2. He filed a second addendum on or about June 9, 2010. Docket entry no. 4.

Dockets.Justia.com

dismissed as frivolous or malicious, upon which relief may he granted,

for failure o soate a claim

or because it seeks monetary For the

relief from a defendant wt..o is immune from such rel ief. reasons se: fcr:h below,

:he Court ooncludes that he Comelaint

should he dismissed without orefudice at this time . I.
ila:nrtf,

BACKGROUND c'oaruer"), § 1983, or:ngs tn:s civil

Ronara James Barcer

righos action,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Chris Christie,

against the

following defendants: Paula Dow, Lanigan,

the Governor of New Jersey; Gary

Attorney General for the State of New Jersey;

Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corre ctions Jennifer Velez, Commissioner of the New Jersey ("NJDHS"); Steven Johnson, NJDOC

("NJDOC");

Department of Human Services Administrator;

and Merril Main,
.

NJDHS Administrator.

(Complaint,

Caption and ¶T 4b--4g)

The following factual allegations are and are accepted for purposes of this

taken from the Complaint, screening only.

The Court has made no findings as to the

veracity of plaintiff's allegations. Barber alleges that, on March 17, 2010, a community meeting in Kearny,
New

was held at the Northern Regional Unit

("NRC")

Je.rsey to discuss a proposed transfer of the NRC residents to th..e
*W
.

The transfer of the NRC residents at the Kearny facility has been the subject of newspaper articles and a re cent application for injunctive relief in a pending civ il case in this

me.eting was conducted by defenda.nt Steven Johnson.

Johnson told

seorecation unit at the EJSP.

he also told the residents that (Compil, ¶6

they would have to take their mattresses with them.

On March 25,

2010,

a memorandum was issued infor.m ing the such as

residents that they can not order personal belongings, food and clothing, to EJSP.

or pay bills because of the pending transfer 2010, for

There also was a deadline of April 9,

District Court, Alves, et al. v. Ferguson, et al., Civil Action No. 01--cv--0789 (DMC) (MF) (Consolidated) This Court refers to the Opinion issued by the Honorable Dennis N. Cavanaugh, U.S .D.J., in the Alves case, on March 29, 2010, in which Judge Cavan augh denied injunctive relief. (See Docket entry no. 115) In Alves, the residents moved to have the Court order that (a) the re sident population at the Annex (another NJDOC facility in New J ersey) not be increased without leave of Court; and (b) the St ate of New Jersey must provide residents' counsel with at least 30 days notice of any proposed transfer to allow the residents an opportunity to seek Court intervention, if necessary. Specifically, for purposes of factual background in this action, Judge Cavanaugh noted that, "[p]ursuant to County of Hu dson v. State of New Jersey, the State of New Jersey is required t o turn over the premises of the [Kearny] facility to the Cou nty of Hudson by May 19, 2010. 2009 N.J. Super Unpub. LEXIS 1188, at *19 (N.J. Super. A.D.). Accordingly, the State must locate another temporary or permanent facility to house the SVPs currently living there." (March 29, 2010 Opinion, Docket entry No. 115, at pg. 2) Judge Cavanaugh further noted that a February 3, 2012 newsuaner article had reported that the residents of the Kearny facility were to be relocated to the Special Treatment Uni.t "Annex" in Avenel, New Jersey, locat ed on or near tne grounds of the East Jersey State Prison. However, by the time the briefing on the residents' motion was comp leted, it had been confirmed that another location had been selected, namely, the administrative segregation unit in Fast Jers ey State Prison itself. (March 29, 2010 Opinion, Docket entry No. 115, at pg. 4).
. .

o
-

p1 k--i

ft

CD 1Q
to
·

s-

ft

CD 01
F'-

s'

ft p1 01 0 p1

5 B B CD
F'-

LI,
5
F'ic C iQ

a' CD

p1

C) 0 5

CD 0
5
-

C
Ca

ii

CD ft 5 0
5 ft
C-i

DI H 0) CD CD CO ft

·

5 CD

ft 5p1

w F'-

a
C 01
·

B CD 0
ft F'ft DI

CO F'ft ft F'ft p1 Dl F'5 4 C to `a ft p1 Di

CD 0 CD
CD F'c-

C) 0 p1

CO

p1

CD
a

0 5 C) `0 H 01
F'S
s

ft 01 ft 4
F'S

o
`0
p1 p1 i--i H

ft DI F'D'

a CD
Hi 0
5
Di F'0 LI, C CD C)
to

aft
p1

S

B t H CD B CD S 5 C
CD

5 F'F-' CD 0 C
p1 01 B 1* p1 0

5 CD

5 ft

5' CD

C `0 CD
5 ft D, ft
DI CO

0 CD Hi S® F'5

a a 0
B 0 4 `0
·

w S a
0 5 C)
5 ft 5' CD
CO CD
F'-

C CD n 0 p1 CD
01 Hi CD p1 CD p1 S F'CD F'-

DI

p1 0

CO

a H a
C
Hi o CD
ft p1

F'Hi

Di CD
CD

`0 `a

p1

n 5' r

ft 5p1

< ·
N)
0

0 4
ft F'-

ft

DI

a a
5-5 0 Hi F'C Z
CD 5`a
p1 CD p1 C) 0 CD p1

0 55
ft 5'
H

0'
Hi F'-

5-n

ft
CO

0 CD s-a S

`-3

F'-

a
0
`

DI

C S
Co `0 C p1 C4

5' DI ft ft
CD 4 C CD ft 0 ft CD H 0 Di DI F'CD

CD a

S < 5 ft 5' DI CO Hi 0
p1 p1 DI
F'-

F'-

LI, 5 CD

F'5 10 F'5 C ft 5CD

Ø

CO

Hi

`0

E CD CD Pc' CO to `a

p1 p1 F'H

p1 CD CO

0

5C CD
5CD ft
1<

p1

CD p1 CO a CD Hi

5`0
5 5 `0
·

E 5Di
F'CD 0 ft 0

Z C
DI

DI ft 5' 5 ft
CD p1 p1 0

ft p1

CD

F'a
CD p1

Di 5 0 Hi
ft

0 5

`c 5
CD H

C

W Di
p1

0 o 5 DI H 0

0 5 ft 0 H a ft 5-

C
CD
p1
·

4 F'S Zinc DI < Hi `0 0 CD .h 0 5 CD a p1 Mt DI 0 01 H oa 0 Pc`0 DI DI `a a ft CD Pc' 50 DI F'C
CO DI ft

B CD
CD
5

ft

0

CD CO

5

a CD
Z
CD ft
`0
CD

at p1
`0
CD
p1 ft `<
p1

ft
--

a DI
DI ft

5CD
a S
HO

Dl DI 0 5

H

ft CD

E
ft
F'0

0
F'-

C) Z
CD
--

C) 5ft

0' B 5 a H ft

5p1 CD E
0

CD 0 F'-

LI, 4 C to

ft

B 0 4 CD
C-i

5CD

`0 p1 0 `0 CD
5Hi
p1

5·

li-i C ·
ft

a CD
E C
CO

`a

a DI 5 0 ft 5CD

5 DI
ft ft

p1 ft to

0
0

0

C C)

0 p1
n

CD

5-

DI

5
a

S
ft

5 F'CO ft
ft

4 F'CO F'0

C4 0
p1

`4 E
0

CD

CD `0
C H ft
l

Pcft

p1

B CD

ft CD

p1

ft 0

p1 ft

0 55 0

C)
F'F'CO DI ft

CD C) CD

CD DI p1 5' DI p1 F'5 ft
F'-

DI

Hi F'C) CD
p1

CD CO S
DI

F'-

to
5
1<

C H H

LI,

k<

0 4
ft F'CD CO

5-4 DI F'H S H C CD `4 aI fl

ft

o
`0 E Z
4 C 0 Z
to to F'ft

0

DI ft CO 0
DI

CD CO
F'-

`a

DI

5-

B B
4
CO

DI

a
CD
ft
Co

S a S

a

0

CD ft

C
CO

5CD F'p1

ft

H

F'5

p1

CD
1<

4 C
CD C
F'-

5 `4

CD

a Di Hi D

a
ft
H
e

`0 (
`0 CD p1
DI

C)
F'-

F'DI 5 F'H CD
S
`

a H
E
Co

a CD a
I L'I 4 C
to `a H p1 F'F'0 S C 5 CD
I-I

ft to F'p1 CD DI

ft 5ft
i--a-

5 0

ft

S

C) `0
ft
·

5pçCD 0

·

DI

F'ft

0 Hi

CO

aF'
DI
CO CO

C) 0 B
ft
ft CD ft

CD C) F'DI ft CD a CD H H CD tO p1 CD C ft C CO

`0 DI C)
ft F'ft `4

0 C H

a

5

0 C

H

CD E S

E CD

a
0 `0 CD B CD
CO
·

CD

p1 to DI S Pc

C CD

0

5

C CD C) > a B
`0 `0 H `4

a
CD
5ft
0 0

DI H

a
S CD
Dl

0

N) 0 H
·

M

`<
·

CD

ft 5-

-

a a CD
·

5

`0
p1

ft

C S ft

Co

F'-

4 CD
* CO Pc' F'-

CD 0 C CD
5 ft C 5

Hi

a
DI ft

CD

C

Hi Di

Z C)
ft
D'

ae bC
B
C
ft CD p1 CD DI

F'-

fl

H

a CD
ft

`-3 5-

·

N)

S ft

5 ft p1 to 0 S CO

ft

F'-

ft 0
F'F'-

·

5-rn
C
`-3 5Hi 0 5
p1

ft

5-

5CD
0
·

0

E 0 C H

CD

B

F'5 ft 0

ft

F'-

CD

5 F'CO ft p1 DI ft 0 p1

a
CD

C)
C CD

CO CD DI p1 5-

ft p1 C

C)
C `4

Pc' ft

H 0 S C F'5 C CO

F'H F'ft DI ft CD

F'CO ft 5-

F's ft CD

a CD
0 CD

a a CD a C
B
5

ft

CD

5-

0

N) H 0 Hi 0
p1

new mailing address for their move to EJSP.

The mailing address,

effective May 10, 2010, is Special Treatment Unit, P.O. Box 190, Avenel, New Jersey. Consequently, all mail, food and other

packages will be sent to Avenel while the residents are housed at EJSP.

(u.).
Barber alleges that he asked Johnson why his mail and food

packages were to be sent to Avenel rather than to EJSP in Rahway. Johnson told plaintiff that the Administrator of NJDHS, Merril Main had made this decision.

(.).

On June 9, 2010, this Court received a second addendum to plaintiff's Complaint. Barber alleges that on May 17, 2010, he However, due to his

went to group therapy in the West Hose.

current situation being placed in EJSP, he could not "fully mentally focus." When Barber complained to Dr. Enright and Ms.

Klos, they disagreed with plaintiff, so Barber left the group. (Addendum at pg. 1, Docket entry no. 4) On May 17, 2010, at about 11:00 p.m., an officer came to get Barber to go to the East House and help him move three dryers onto the floor for use. Barber alleges that the building is

dirty, smells like dead animals, and it makes him sick to go over to the East House to work.

(. at pp. 1-2)

On May 18, 2010, Barber next complains that he was strip searched in the East House. He was told to disrobe and had to He also had to open his mouth

bend over and spread his buttocks.

5

and spread his toes to be searched.

Barber states that his room

in the South House was searched while he was in the yard and not present. When Barber asked Administrator Johnson why he was

being singled out for a strip search and room search, Johnson replied that he did not know.

(., at pg. 2).

Barber states that the transfer to EJSP occurred on May 11, 2010 and/or May 12, 2010. after 10:30 p.m. He did not receive his mattress until

He complains that the cell where he was placed Dust and dirt

is cold and dirty, with dead roaches on the floor. come out of the vents.

On May 13, 2010, he was told to go to the

mess hall in the Annex, which was a path of loose gravel and dirt that smelled of goose droppings. Once the residents received

their meals, they were told to take their food back to their unit.

(., at pg. 3).
On May 27, 2010, Barber was awakened by the 1st shift

officer and told to report to the North House.

Upon arrival at

the North House, he was finger scanned ("Ion search").

(a.).

Also on May 27, 2010, Barber and other SVP residents at EJSP spoke to an attorney in the NJDHS' Advocacy Office. The

residents were informed that Dr. Main had conducted a "Hair Score Psychopathy Test", which allegedly labeled plaintiff as a troublemaker with a lot of influence on the general population. Barber states that he has not had any trouble or incidents in the last year. Being labeled as a troublemaker has caused conflict Barber brought this

with his attendance at group sessions.

6

c. t
Cl)
-- --

C) Cl
H

S C)
it

N) CU CD C) H
CU
it it

CU
0 0

H
HN)

0

CU

C)

C)

CU

Cl

Cl CU
it

S
0 0

0 N) HC) C) 0
it CU it

CD it

HN) CU

çt

CU
N)

C) CU C) Cl
N) N)
HH) H-

F-

t

C) Cl
it

S Cl 5
C) Cl

5
CU C) CU (0 Cl
CD HCU C) 0 HN) N)
it

H

HHC) C)

Cl
N)

Cl CU Cl CU

Cl
iC. Cl CD C) 0

S

Cl 0 C)

5

CU it it

0 C) C) it
·
`

CD
H it 0

it

<
it H

0 C) CU Cl
CU
it

CU

it

H N)

CU N) Hit

C)
HCU

CU C)
HC) C) 0
it

N) · Cl CD HCU Cl CD C HN) N) H

C) CU
O CD Cl CU CU C) H
it H--

CD
F-) H
--UI
--

N) CU C)
·

it
C) 0

CU

N) CD 0CD H

CU
F--I F-I

CU

N) Ui)

H-

ct
C)
CU CU

))

H0 C)

Cl CU H Cl CD H

CD H N) CD H CD C) Cl N) CU HC) CU CU N) CD H

CU
N) N) Cl CD Cl CU

C)
CU

CU H Cl CD

H C) H C)
C)
it it

it

CD
it

CD

N)
CD H

0

5
)
HCU
it

C) Cl CD

N) N) F-)

it Cl CD ()

it

Cl CD Cl
CU

C) ·

CU

it

(0 CD C)
it

N) Cl
it

h

C)
Cl) H C)
it

CD

it Cl

5

Cl

·

CC) CU
Cl

0 Cl Cl CD
H-

N)

·

S
C)
H CD
it H

CU Cl
it

Cl Cl CU
it

H-

HCU

C) 0 C) H

N) N) CD H HC) Cl CD C) CU CU N) C) C) Cl

Cl CD
0 N) CU Cl 0 C)
CU
it N)

Cl 0 C) H

Cl C) C) CU N)
CU H-

CU
it Cl CD

it

CU it
it

Cl
H

Cl
CD

(0
CU Cl N) N)
it H
(I)

CU

C)
(0
HC)
F-)

S
C)
HC)
it

0 H Cl 0 CD Cl N) CU Cl CD Cl CD CU
)i)

CD CU Cl
H0 C) 0 N) Cl 0 C)

CD C) C)
CU
F-)

Cl
H-

Q
Cl N) HCU

it H

Cl
HCU

HCU C) C)
H-

N) UI)

CD

C) Cl Cl
CD HCU
iC)

CU

Cl

5
CU HN)

N) HF-

N) CD CD

0

CU

CD Cl H H-

C) CU Cl
`

it

CU Cl CU
it
ii)

CD CD
H

0

N)

C) (0
N) H-

CU

5
H
0 C) Cl HCU
it H-

H

5
C)

Cl
H
Cl CD CU Cl CU CU CU

C)
CD HCD)
it

C)
N)

C)

-----

CD
C) CU
F-)

C) 0. CU CD (0
C) H

) Cl CD
it

C) < (0 CU (0 C) CU Cl
H 0 H0 N)
CU

C) CD)

Ci H

--

C)
it

N)

H
CD

----

it

--I

C) N)

N)

C) Cl Cl
it

CU
HCU
(I)

H
CU
0 N) CD

C)

--

H-

C) HH CD N) 0 H HCl

C) C) Hit

H HCU 0 C)

CU

0 H C H-

C)

Cl.

H CD

5

Cl
H) CU C) HHC) HCU

CU
it

H HCU

I--I N

--

Cl Cl
0

Cl Cl
it

0

H CD
C)

S
:>
CD

Cl Cl
HCU Hit

CD ()

CD Cl

Cl CD
H CU 0

0
H
Cl CU H
it

CD

--

N) it H

Ut

C)
H HN) HH-

C) C)
CD H HN) N)
it

H

Cl
N)

· 0 H
CD

H(0

Cl C) H
CD Cl CD C) Cl
it it it H-

CU

CU

it H CU C) CU N) CD H
it Cl CD

HCD N) 0 C) CD

it

HCl
HCD

H
0

0 C) C) C)
N)

5
CD
) CU H Cli 0

H-

CU HCl C)
HI

CU
HC)

CD Cl Cl CU CU CU CU C) C)
C) CU

5

CU N) CU 0

C)

0 C) CU it Hit C)

CU

C)
CU N) 0 C) CU it
H-

N)

Cl
H-

CU
0 C) CD H

it
F-) it HH

HF-)
·

CD

it H

CD Cl
H 0 Cl

0

F-)

H Cl
N)
F-)

5 C) C) CD CU N) CD C!) Cl CD Cl
H 0 Cl

N) Cl) Cl CU C) Cl C)
HCU Cl HC) C) 0

Cl

H

CU N) CD

CU
CU CU

CD CD
H it
F-)

C) 0

--

C) H

CU S
(0 E! Cl

CU
it

S
CU CD
H HCl

H-

CD

C)

H-

CD
H it CU (0 H

H-

·

HI

H

N) H

iC)

ii) N) F-)

0 N) 0
(0

5
C) H
CU C)
Ut HN H-

H

5
I--I

Cl
Cl)

N)

it it

N

C) Cl CD
H

CU CD CU
it CU N) CU C)
·

CD
H H it
it t

Cl H 0

CD C) Cl
N)

CU C)

0 N) 0 C) 0 (0 Cl N) CU

C)

CU

çt

CU

CD CU

5
it N) CU H-

>
CU
C)

it C) it H0 C)

CD Cl
Cl CU

it

CU Cl
H
Hit

CD Cl CD
it H

S
CD Cl CD Cl
CU it H H0 C) Cl Cl
N) N)

H HCU 0 C)

5
C)
I)-

Cl CD C)

CU N) CD

C) C) Cl

Cl

5
to
CU
CD H H-

Cl to CU IC)
C) C)
HN) Hit
F-)

C)

Cl CU
it H

Cl CD C)
HN) H-

CD Cl

Cl CD Cl CD CU
Cl it it H

S

CU CD

H CD

0 H

Cl
it

(0 CD

it

0

Cl

5
CD
· CU CU

CU CD Cl CD
·

Cl CD

N)

H-

C)
H it C) it

CU Cl CD
H

C) C)

N) HCD C) N) CU H
-

CU CD CU

N)

CU N) HC) H0

Hit

Cl

5

H CU 0 C) N)

-----

CD Cl
N) F-)

H H-

CU

CD C

C) CU

CU

5

CU

HCU

Cl CD C)

it

CU 0 C) CD
0
N)

H

Cl

Barber is croceedinc in forma pauperis in this matter,

this

action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B), the

In determi.ninp t.he sufficiency of a o se complaint,

Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the claintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, Gamble, 519, 42 551 P.S. 429 U.S. 89, 97, 93--94 106

(2007) (following Estelle v. Haines v. States v. Kerner, Day, 404 U.S.

(1976)

and

520--21 (3d Cir.

(1972)),
1992)
.

See also United The Court must

969 C.2d 39,

"accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn t5ierefrorn, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Merion School Dist., need not, however, 132 P.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. and view them Lower The Court

Morse v. 1997).

credit a g se plaintiff's "bald assertions" Id.

or "legal conclusions."
A complaint

is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, the

either in law or in fact." 325 (1989)

(interpreting the predecessor of § 1915(e) (2),
.

former § 1915 (d) )

The standard for evaluating whether a Deutsch v. United

complaint is wfrivolousff is an objective one. States, St F.Sd 1090, 1016--8° (3d Cir. l995

.A po

complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a

claim only if it appears "`beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Haines, 404 U.S. at 521 (quoting Conley v.

Gibson,

.3.55 U.S.

41,

45--46

(1957)).

ee also E.ric.ksn,

551 U.S. the Court

1n a pro se

risc'ner civil riahts conclaint,

revcewed whether the complaint complied with th.e pleading reociremeris
Ot

Role 0 (a

2
the Supreme Court revised this standard

However,

recently,

for summary dismissal of a Complaint, that fails to state a claim in Ashcroft v. ibal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). The issue before

the Supreme Court was whether Iqbal's civil rights complaint adequately alleged defendants' personal involvement in

discriminatory decisions regarding Iqbal's treatment during detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center which, violated his constitutional rights. 8(a) (2) Id. if true,

The Court examined Rule

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides

that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of th e claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (2). v. Citing its recent opinion in Bell 550 U.S. 544 (2007), for the

Atlantic Corp.

Twombly,

proposition that "[a] conclusions' or

pleading that offers

`labels and

`a formulaic recitation of the elements of a "Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
P'-'f'

cause of action will not do,'
c
--

at

1949

(quoting

.

ccc

..".

wor)cirg principles underlying the failure to state a claim standard:

Rule 8(d) (1) provides that "{e]ach allegation must he simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required." Fed.R,Civ.P. 8(d).

CD H H m
I-hZ

B
H CD CD CD 0

CD a
C CD

F'CD o o

C) E
CD `-3 CD H H CD

0

`-3

Z
.0 CD En En 0'CD
HZ'Z'O Z'O'< CD0CDF'-Z C) C C Z.0 H C) F'- 0 CDH HCDHC F'-aitCD CCDH
1h

0'
H CD
jQ

F' CD I--' H `<

C
H M 0 Cl) 0 it it
H `-0
CD

o

i0 CD it F' 0 Z CD it CD it 0 CD
F-'

CD

0 0 C H it

F'I-h
5

0 HI

m m a
·
·

H

S CD

0'

ZF'-HCDZit

C
.0 H CD I CD
F'-BCDit
`

I-'

CD

CD

H CD

:i

.0 H CD C CD F'0' I--'

CD C)
F' CD
CD

HI HI F'ICDHZO it
F'-CD

H CD CD Z CD F'- it `<CD H itiQ 0 F'-O CDCD CDZHIO HCD'<Z

C) 0

0 CD

ZF' CDCDOCDCa
CD CD

C H it Z' CD H

Z
it CD

`<ZH

x

it

a
to

H CD

F'

Il-i 10. ·

it tYCD it `-3 :r I-'CD

HZE C)CDtH HF' F'-CDCDBH CD F'-HC C Z CD Z CD H I-'CD CD 0 CDC
·O H CD F'-

Z
I H
`a

Z
0'
ciC-p

it :" CD
:i·
Cs'

it CD Z
H

HI CD C) it C CD
CD a

it 0
--

H 0

CD H CD
a

a
C)
· it it H it 0
CD

CD it

·0 H CD `-3 CD it F'CD H F'CD

C Z
it Z' CD 0 E it CD it CD

CD F' 0'

a CD HI CD Z a CD S CD H H 0

CD

E

I;!
F'it CD it F'0 CD

CD
H CD 0' H CD it 0 a H CD HI 0 H it CD C) 0 C H it

.0

CO t

a CD

HCDCDCH3CDCD

I iti-'-itgi it<t 0 F'-CD 0 CD HO'Z CD Z H CD CD CD ZiQ B mCDm itCDo Z00.CDnF'it F'- CD C CD it it F'CD it at Z H Z 0 .0 CDCDZ it HIotait F'-CDD)HH it itZnitoit 0 HitCD 400' capm CD0. sitm aitn CD Z'HOsCD Z'CD CD 1< ZCD CDCS itZCD it CDF' HHIZ'CD CD CD itaHCDCDCD CD (flit OCDCDC) itQ itHIC Z'O

SBt C) H H Ct 0 aZ C) HCD `*3 CD F'-CD 0 CD CD CD HO F'-0 CDCD HF' Z'CD H B I HitCD Z CD itC'C) HH 0C)B3F'-F'-CDCQQ CDCDCDCD E 0 F'-O CD CD H CD HO CD CD HQ it n itz E HIB F'-C IC CD F'I-'-0CDCDHIOOit `--`C itCD Z E Z HF"H HIHIO F'-it OZCD,0F'-F'-CDO'<F'ZOZ' IitCDZ HZ Z OCDOZCD S CD C) HiQ C) CD HI CD 0 H CD it OCDO H'O it itC Z'itO' C' ED' H' F'-CDOCD CDZC H' Z'&'· rtCDn ci. CDBcoo,- ZOZCD itW it CD Zitit Wito CrO'THIGt. CD0' --Z'OititOCDCDOOH CD' F'-it CDCDBO HHZCD C ZZ Eac -- .0 0.e--zJt CDCD --tI-'I-'-ZH CDHZCtI-30.rt I3HCDZCDCD0 CD itHOZ' CD &`- HI H E 0 C) H 0 F'- CD H H F'- CD CDZCDCD ZOI-'-Zrn itmz Q..itti OitBCDHHIa,CDCD 0 CD itzCDtt-h'c a(LCDO XH HZBZ CD' Os C CDOCDF'-itCDCDCDH. 0'CDOH F'-CDH itIF'-C B''<Hoit CD CDECDCDZHC)CD CDB CD CD tit4oao. .03 CDHitHLI.CD I--B OCDHHC Z HZ'HC C) CD 4.0 ECD H CD CD CD itCD CD I aF'-itCD HF'-CD CD 0 F'-it F'-QtF'-HICDCDCDit itCD HOF'-it F'-Z'ZflititCD HaitCDF'-OCDCDZ OOCD C) CD IZ'CDCD CD itZitZHF'-fl ao'CDaHrIC)CDCDCD 0 B

CD C CDCDOititCH .0 ititBQ.CDCD itZ'ZZC0F'-it CD 0 XtF'-CDF'-HCDHIz

CD it
it Ca
I-1

o o C

I
Z.
CD
1<

%0 H

I-I

a

Z' E

c-n

0
H

C

C) H CD i-'.

B
CD
F'-

`-`-

it Z' CD

a
I-'

CD H itCD CDt'< z H B F'- H B it F'-F'-0 CDF'-CDC) CDZZCDE0HZ' HICD CD HO Z CD 0 HIl · 0 E CDOZCD ZCDjo HIOCD CD CD0 itO itHIit3 it Z0F'H00 CDCOCDCH HHZ itCDO itCD CD Z' it ·itjQ ·

I!
:1

I

CDZ

ZF'

Z

F'-HHIt H0itZOO CDCD HitCDCDCDitCDZ iQC)HittCD CD OHZC CD ?%"<Zt HrtitF'-CDCDitit3 CDHit F'-CDOCDCDitI-.'-OCDOC-PCD F--H CDCDCD Z Os itH'itCDflC HI CDa0HHaCDCDCDCDHCDCD Zfr'-OCDCDCDF'-CD rrCDO' 0Os CD .0 itaCDaI--CD it F'- Z CD C C) 3 CD Z- 0 3 CD CD H HOZF'-HF'H C D O CD Z I'-'i F'-itaHCDCD ZHZrrit it CDt--CD fl CDitCDOO 2. CDB' `< CD HI I. 00 0 itH I it HI HI HI Z0 0CDH OCD CD

also Twombly,

505 U.S.

at 555,

& n.3;

Fcwlerv.UPMcShadyside,

Consequent..ly,

the.. Third Circuit observed that Gibal provides
f.

the "final naii-in--the--coffin set forth in Conley v. Gibson,

no set of facts' 41, 45--46

standard"

355 U.S.

(3957),4 th at 578 F.3d

applied to federal complaints before Twombly. at 210.

Fowler,

The Third Circuit now requires that a district court

must conduct the two-part analysis set forth in Iqbal when presented with a motion to dismiss:
First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. [Igbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-5 01. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." In [.] other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to "show" such an entitlement with its facts. See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234--35. As the Supreme Court instructed in Igbal, "[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduc t, the complaint has alleged-but it has not `show [n]'-'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Igbal, [129 S.Ct. at 1949--50] . This "plausibility" determination will be "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court t o draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
.

Fowler,

578 F.3d at 210--211.

In 1le, as st.ated above, a district court was permitted to summarily dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only if "it appear[ed] beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Id., 355 U.S. at 45-46. Under this "no set of facts" standard, a complaint could effectively survive a m otion to dismiss so long as it contained a bare recitation of the claim's legal elements.

This Court is mindful,

however,

that the sufficiency of this

o se oleadino must be construed liberally in favor of

Plaintiff, 20 07':
.

even afte.r tibal.

See Erickson v.

Pardus,

551 U.S.

89

tioreover,

a court should not dismiss a complaint with

orejudice for failure to state a claim without granting ieave to amend, unless it finds bad faith,
See @ravscn v. 2002);

undue delay,

prejudice or
293 E.3d lO;3, 117

futility. 111

`4ayview State Hosp.,

hO--

(3d Cir.

Shane v.

Fauver,

213 F.3d 113,

(3d Cir.

2000). III. SECTION 1983 ACTIONS § 1983,

Barber brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 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
.. . . .

Thus,

to state a claim for relief under § 1983, first,

a plaintiff must

allege,

the violation of a right secured by the second, that the

Constitution or laws of the United States and,

alleged derrivation was committed or caused by a oerson acting under color of state law.
(1988); 1994) Piecknick v.

West v. Atkins,

487 U.S.

42,

48
(3d Cir.

Pennsylvania,

36 P.3d 1250,

1255--56

12

IV.

THE NEW JERSEY SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR ACT

The New Jersey SVPA,
the custody,

N,J.S.A.

30:4--27.24 et seq.,

provides

care and treatment of involuntarily committed
("SVP")

persons who are deemed t.o be sexually violent predators N.J. S.A. ("DOC")
30:4--27.26.

New Jersey Decartment of Corrections N.J.S,A.

operates the facilities designated for SVPs,

3O:4-27.34a; ("DHS")

and the New Jersey Department of Human Services N.J,S.A. 30:4--27.34(b).

provides for their treatment.

The SVPA was amended in 2003 to require that regulations be promulgated jointly by the DCC and the DHS, of the Attorney General, in consultation with

taking "into consideration the rights of 1965, c. 59 (C.

the patients as set forth in section ten of P.L. 30:4--24.2)
. . .

[to]

specifically address the differing needs and

specific characteristics of,
sexually violent predators." In passing the SVPA,

and treatment protocols related to,
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.34(d).

the New Jersey Legislature made N.J.S.A. 30:4--27.25. The

specific findings regarding SVPs.

Legislature noted that it was necessary to modify the previous civil commitment framework and additionally separate SVPs from other persons who have been civilly committed. defines a SVP as: a person who has been convicted, adjudicated delinquent or found not guilty by reason of insanity for commission of a sexually violent offense, or has been charged with a sexually violent offense but found to be incompetent to stand trial, and suffers from a mental abnormality or nersonality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for control, care and treatment.
· .

Id.

The SVPA

.

13

U) ft

ft
C)
CD Di Di CD C) H H ft CD ft C)

H Di
·

H
C)

C)

HH

C) Di
ft C) Di CD

H
H CD

CD

CD

S 5
C)
tft

H CD Di ft

S
HH

C)

C) Di C) H 0 C) 0 H ft H

C)
CD H C) C)
ft

H H

C)
HDi H H

o
C)

S
Di Di
ft C) H ft C) CD U) ft CD
ft
·

C) Di 0 C)
Di Di

CD H ft ft C) ft H CD C) 0 ft ft C) CD

CD C) CD Di Di Di H H-

CD H ft Di ft

C)

H H CD H H-

ft ft CD

C)
C)
ft H H C) CD

H ft

S
C)

Di H Di ft CD H ft H Di H H H Di H C) CD

H CD H H CD C) U)

·

ft

C) U)

Di Di

C) H H ft

H C) ft CD C)

C) C) <
C) C)
-

C)

ft C)

H

ft CD H U)

H C) C). Di CD

<

U) C)
C)

ft C) CD ft C) CD

·

C) C) H

ft C) Di

C)
Hit ft ft

ft C)
Di CD
·

Di CD C) H CD

Di
H HDi Di Di ft C) H
H
-

Di ft

C) Hft Hft C) Di H Di Di Di Di C) C) 0 H

C)

>
ft 0

C) H HH C) H-

C) CD ft C)

C) H) HC)

ft

HH C) CD ft HH

C) C) Di C) Hft Di ft Di

H-

ft C) Di
-

it

C) Di C)

ft CD

H
I

C) CD
(A)

CD C)

U) C)

C) Di H Di Di Di

C)
C) C H

ft C) Di

H H ft Di H C) C) H

CD Di H HH C)

Di

C) CD H Di

C)
C)

U)

C) H Hft CD C)

H Di

H)

U)
·

C) C)
C)

HH

HH ft C) H

H Di ft ft C)

C)
CD

C) CD C) Di H Di CD
U)

C) 0 H ft HH CD

U) C)
H HC)

C) CD H C) H HDi C) H C) ft Di HDi C) H

HH C) ft C)

C)
CD ft
H-

H

H

C) ft ft
H-

C)
U)

C) C)

C)

5
<

H H Hft

H
ft
C) CD C) C) CD
-

S

C) Di C)
H

H
C)
ft Di <

Di ft Di Di C)

C)

CD H ft 0 Di ft ft C)

ft Di ft CD Di ft H
Ct H:

C)

H:

o

-5

U) C) CD H CD H CD CD HH CD

C)

C) H CD C) H CD H H C) Hft HC) H Di H0 ft CD H ft Hft C) HH

H

H

U)
C)

ft ft CD C)

(A) C) U)
·

5
C) ft
C) Di Di Di

ft Di C) Hft H-

ft

S
",

C)

C) ft H H ft Di H C) ft C) CD Hft C) H-

H H Di ft HC) H C) H CD C) Di C) C) Di H H Di ft ft H0 ft CD H ft

Di Di Di CD H ft CD C) HH

b

H ft Di
H

U) C) C)

-

C) CD H ft HH CD H ft

C)

H H C) C) H Di ft Hft H ft HC) H Di ft

H ftC) U)
--

H H C) CD H C) HDi
(A)

ft

-

Di H C)

C) C) H ft HH CD

H C) CD C) C)
U) (3)
--

ft
H CD
-

S

ft
U)

ft HH ft C) CD ft 0 ft C) CD C) ft
·

CD

S
ft C) CD
ft

ft C) CD

pY L
Cl) Di H C) CD H Cl) Di H C) CD H Di C) Di H C) CD

C) C)
H

C) CD U)

C) C) H ft HC) CD 0 H Di CD H 0 H Di H H0 ft CD H ft (0 (0 U)
--

5
H H Hft Di C) Di ft CD

CD H ft C) C)

U) C) C) I U) C) 0)

CD

C)

H

ft

HH H C) ft H H ft Di H Hft C) H HDi 0 H C) H CD C) Di ft 0 H
Di CD CD
-

·

3) C) ft

C) HH Hft ft C)
Di Di

I
C) C) C) 0 0 ft ft C) CD ft 0

H CD C) C)

C)

H:

C)

H H C) CD H

H C)

ft
·

H H C) CD H

H C) H Di

H 5
CD C) C) C) C)

C)

5 S 5
CD C)
CD H CD

C) Di H Di Di Di U) H C) H C) H CD

C) 0 H C) Hft H0 H

S 5 S
H C) CD

C)
U)

Di C) :3)

S
C) CD

Di C) Di ft ft

CD

`

5

HC) CD C)
l

ft C) CD C) CD H Di ft 0 C) CD ft C) CD C Di Di CD H CD H
·

C) ft 0 H Hft C)

Hft ft CD C) CD H CD

5

Di ft 0 H Di HH Di

C)
C) ft

U)
H C) H CD

Hft

C)

ft
CD C)

C) ft Di H H

CD H C) Di ft H C) H

ft

U)
C)

ft

C) Di H Di Di Di C) 0 H H ft

C) C) ft
ft C) H Di

H Di

C) ft
C)

H CD C) CD HH CD 0 H ft HH CD CD

H

l Di Di

CD Di Di CD H ft HDi

5

H C) ft

5

H CD H CD H ft CD H ft C) HDi

C) CD H Di C) H

ft C) Di ft

H) U) U) C)

ft C) CD

H CD ft CD Di Di CD C) U) C) U)

Di H H H Di ft

SVPA was not unconstitutional so long as such ci vili y--confined pe.rsons ai.e segregated from the general prison p opu.lation and atorde the same status committed. 531 U.S. Id., 521 U.S.
aS

others who have beE.n civilly 368--69. See also Selirig v. Young,

at

250,

261062

(2001) ho1ding same with respect to the

State of Washington's IdEA) Here, the New Jersey SUPA is essentially the same as th e

Kansas and Washington SVP statutes that were exa mined and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in Hendricks and Seling, respectively. (SRC), Bagarozy v. *7_8 Goodwin, Civil Action No. 23, 08-468

2008 WL 4416455,

(D.N.J. 109,

Sept.

2008);
211

In re

Commitment of W.Z., Therefore,

173 N.J.

801 A.2d 205,

(2002). with the SVP

this Court finds that Barber's transfer,

residents of the Kearny facility, East Jersey State Prison does not, U.S.

to a segregated unit in the in and of itself, Moreover, violate the

Constitution's Due Process Clause.

because the

transfer has now been effected,

plaintiff's claim for injunctive

relief to prevent the transfer to EJSP is now re ndered moot. Accordingly, the claim that plaintiff's transfer to a segre gated

unit within a prison facility is unconstitutional will be

Pcecentlv, the Supreme Court held constitutional und er the Necessary and Proper Clause, a federal statute t hat allowed a district court to order the civil commitment ·of a sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date the prisoner would otherwise be released. United States v. Comstock, No. 08-1224, U.S. , 130 S.Ct. 1949 (May 17, 2010) Although these civilly committed persons remained confined at a federal prison, namely, KId Butner, the Court did not address their place of clvii confinement as being unconstitutional.
.

15

dismissed for failure to state a cogn.izable claim of a cOnsticuc:Onar ceorcoaccon. B. Condit.ions of Confinement Claim Ai:hcuoh nlainoiff' s crison facility is ccc, violation, transfer to a segreoated onir within a a ccnstiautional

in and of itself,

Barber makes additional allegations concerning the For instance, he

conditions of confinement ac the EJSP facility.

complains that he will be housed in a 23--hour lock--down facility. However, Barber also states that Mr. Main had told the residents

that there would be a period of time needed to resolve issues of recreation and yard time, meal supply and dining, and the

renovation of the space to make suitable living quarters for the civilly committed residents. 307, 321-22 See Youngberq v. Romeo, 457 U.S.

(1982) ("Persons who have been involuntarily committed

are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.") di rt y,
.

Moreover,

Barber alleges that his cell is and he has to walk through a

has roaches on the floor,

gravel and dirt path that smells like goose droppings to get to the mess hail. Ceneraily, reocires that civill

committed persons not beliubjected to conditions that amount to punishment, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 (l979), within

In Bell v. Wolfish, the Supreme Court held that whether a condition of confinement of retrial detainees violated their constitutional rights turns on whether the disability is imposed
.

1O

the bounds of rcfessional discretion, 321--22. Specifically, in Yocnqberq,

Younberg,

457 U.S.

at

the Supreme Court held that

civilly committed persons do have constitution all? protected interests, but that these rights must be balanced against the

reasons rut forth by the State for estriooin g their liberties. Ed. at 3ft. The Constitution is no: conoerned with de mio imis liberties. Id. at 320. Moreover, "due

restrictions on patients'

process requires that the conditions and dura tion of confinement [for civilly confined persons] bear some reasonable relation to Seling, 531 U.S.

the purpose for which persons are committed." at 265.

While the nature of an SVP's confinement may factor in it is clearly established

this balance of what is reasonable,

that the substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to SVPs. (8 Cir. See Andrews v. Neer, 253 F.3d 1052, 1061

2001) (applying the Fourteenth Amendment's "ob jective

reasonableness" standard to excessive force c laims brought by civilly committed SVPs) Barber's main allegation with respect to th e conditions of his confinement relates to his contention tha t he is now housed in a 23--hour lock down facility. This restriction also involves

limited recreation yard time and having to dine at the Annex (Rahway Camp), afterwards. which limits time for eating and washing up Barber acknowledges in his Complaint that

However,

for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate government purpose. 441 U.S. 520, 535--39, c1979) 17

these conditions are merely temporary until the "Ad Seg Unit" is renovated for the SUP residents. At most., the administrators

to.l.d plaintiff and the other SUP residents that it would take a month or two to oomnlee renovan ions to accommodate the less resron nreane:-ore'tec e- rcer siaoe for This Court further observes from 4 that Barber works in and goes

committed SUPs. claintiff's addendum the East House,

Dccket entry no.

walks no the dining hail at the Annex,

to group sessions,

which tends to belie the allegation that the

residents are subject to a 23-hour lockdown. Moreover, yard activity, even if plaintiff has temporary restrictions in mobility, and dining facilities, the Third Circuit

has held that placement of a civilly committed SVP in segregated confinement does not violate due process unless the deprivation of liberty is in some way extreme. Fed. U.S. SVPs) Appx. 472
.

Deavers v.

Santiago, Conner,

243 515

719,

721

(3d Cir.

2007) (applying Sandin v.

(l995), to segregated confinement of civilly committed See also Thielman v. Ieean, 282 F.3d 478
th 7 (

Cir.

2002) (likewise extending Sandia to civil commitment settings) As stated above, Barber's complaints about the restrictions on Consecuently,

his confinement are minimal and clearly temporary.

In Samdin, the Supreme Court held that there was no cognizable liberty interest in freedom from additional restraint in a prison setting. See 515 U.S. at 486 (`UJe hold that [the pris.oner'sl discipline in segregated confinement did not present the mmcc cf atynical, significant deprivation in which a State miht conceivably create a liberty interest.") 18

C) it N) N)

C)

it

H-

C)
Hit

Cl
O
<

hi Cl
Cl 0
HC) N)

C) C) C)
it

it
0

HC) C) N) C) C) it Cl hi

C)
HH(V HC) it
--

C)
(C it C)
Cx)

Cl
it

C) C) Cl
C) HHC)

N) 0 0 C) CD it

hi C)
(I)

it

CJ <

C) C) C)

N) N) N)

C)
N) N) CD
hi

(V C) Cl

C) C)
HC) C) HC) it C)
<

C).
Hit HCl C) N) C) N) Cl N) N) it HC) C)

C) C)
hi it

C)

C) C)
HC)

C) C) Cl

N) hi

C)
C)

C) Cl

C)
--

it it it

C)
2 C)
<

--

C) it

C)

Cl

C) C) C) C) Cl
HC) C) C)

it

C)
C))

C) C) it N)

C) 1) C) Hhi HC) it 0 hi it

C)

Hit it C)

C). Cl
C) hi C)
it

C)

C)) C) hi

C) C) C)
hi it it
H-

C)
it
--

C) C)
0 it Cl C) C) it C)

0 C)

0 it

C) C)

HC) C)

C)
C)
it

H-

C) C) C) HC) it 0 Hit

C)
C)
C)
Cl
Hit
C)

HC) it C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) hi C) 0 C) C) C) hi it C) it 0 it 0 hi C) it it
-

HC) C) it H0

Cl N)

hi Cl C) C)

C) Cl N) C)
it hi HH-

H-

C) C)
C) C) C) N) 0

N) hi C) it

Cl Cl C) hi Cl

C) hi it Cl C) it

it Cl HC) C) 0

C)
C)
-,

Cl

C)

HCl C) hi C) Cl C) 0 C) hi it it 0 hi C) Cl
HI HI

C) it C) C) HC) it Cl Cl C) hi Cl it Cl C) it C) 0 it it Cl C) it C Cl HC) Cl

C)

C) Cl C) C) it it
-

t Hit Cl HC)

N) Cl
HC) C) 0 0 C)

N)
C)
HI

C) it
N)

Hit hi C)
U-

hi. C) Cl C) hi Cl

it Cl C) it

Cl Cl C) hi Cl it Cl hi C) C) C) C) Cl it C) Cl C) it C) H-

--

Cl Cl hi C) C) C) 0 it C) it HQ C) hi it C) C) C) it Cl

C)

Cl
C) C) C)

C) C) Cl

it

C) Cl

Cl Cl
(C C) Cl C) it

C)

C) it C)

C)) C)

C) ·

it Cl (V

C) C)

·

C) hi C) 0 C) C)

C)
C C)
hi it HC) C) C) it it C) C) Cl 0 it

hi
N) C) hi C) Cl C) hi

(C C) it C) 0 it it 0

Cl C) Cl Cl

Cl

C)
-

it C)

C) C)

C) C) C)

C) 0 C) it C)

C) Cl
H-

C) Cl Cl hi C) C) C) C) C) >C it C) C) it

Cl
(V hi

Q

it Cl HC) it Cl C) hi

, --

N) C) hi it it Cl C) N) 0 it Cl C) C) hi C) Cl 0 C) hi Cl it 0 hi C) C) C) C) C) C) it it hi C) C) C)

C)

it 0 hi

HC) C) it Hit

0 it

0 C)

C)

C)
it Cl

it H-

C) C)
hi it
CO

C)
0 C)
C)

C) C)
N)
·

C) it C) HHI HI

N) N) C)

it Cl C) C) C) it Cl C)

N)

cx) co
C)
Cl it it Cl C)

it H0 C) N) 0 C) hi
it

it Cl C) 0 C) it Cl C) C) hi C) C) Cl

0) N) N)

C)
C) C) C) Cl
H-

C) C) Cl

C) Cl Hit HC)

hi 0 C) C) Cl C) C)

HC)

C)
C)

Cl C) C) it

C)
C)

C) C) C) C) C) Hit C) hi it

(1) C) C) 0 C) Cl Cl C) HCl C)

C)
C)

N) 0 0 it Cl C) it
H-

0 hi

Hit C)

-

N)

N) HCl
Hhi

C)
C) Cl N) N) Cl it it Cl

it
N)

Cl Cl

Cl

hi
C)

Cl

· N)

it C) it

N)

C) C) it Cl

Cl

C) C)

Cl

co

HI N) hi

0)

C)
it Cl
Hhi

Cl

Cl it N) hi C) it

C) HC) Cl C)

Cl
0 C)
C) H-

C) C) hi 0 it Cl C)
hi

it Cl C) C) 0

H-

it 0 hi C) it Cl C)
H-

co
--

C) C) C) it Cl
Cl

C)
it

C) Hit

0
-

it it C) 0 hi

C) Cl
N)

C) C) Cl C) C) it
it

it Hit it C) C) C) C) Cl C) 0 it

.---..

HI

o C) C) it

N) C) Cl Cl C) hi Cl

0 it

N) Cl

C)
C)
C) Cl
HC) N) 0

HC) it

C)
Cl

C)

C)
C)

0 it it N)

hi C) C) 0 C) C) it H0 C)
C)

it C) Cl it C)

N)

<C
Cl
H-

hi
N) C) C)

it it 0 0 hi

hi

C)

tO

C)

C) C) C)
Hhi

Cl it

C) it C)

0 hi

HI

it

H-

HI

hi

C)
C) it it Cl 0
-

hi it

C)
C) Hit

Hhi

C)

-

C)

xC

it

C)

hi

0

it H-

C)

(C

Cl
C)

C)

C))

C)

C)
HC) Cl C) HCl

hi C) C) it

0 C)
C)

Cl
C) C)

C) it
H-

C) 0 C) Cl

C) 0

-`

Cl C) C)

·

N)

Cl

N) N)

HI

C)
N) N)
0) it

0 C) C) it Hit

Cl C)
Cl C) N) Cl it C) HHhi it C)

0
Cl

cC)

C)
C) C)

CD

Cl
C)
N)
·

C)

C) C) it Cl

it HC) C)

C)

C)

Hit H-

Cl C) H-

H-

CO HI

C) it C) HC) C) C) C)

C) C)

C)

C) hi Cl C) hi C)

C) C) it C)

--

C) C)
it
HC) it Cl C) it Hit
-

C) it C) C) C)
-

0 C)
C)

N

·

hi it 0
C) C) N) Cl Cl HC) Cl

N)

.

-

C) hi hi C) it C)
hi
H-

Cl C) C)
it

N) Cl

C)

hi C) it C) it

C)

H-

0 it 0 C)
C) C) Cl
C)

C) Cl it C)

C) Cl it

C) Cl

2005) ("Hibbard i"))

The court then concluded that althouch the

claintiffs "did soend a substantial amount of time on flo or mattresses," they had access to larte day rooms and the record
did not substantiate plaintiffs'

claims that the use of floor

mattresses caused disease or led to the sniashing of human waste on the plaintiffs.

Id.,

After noting the efforts made by the ja.il the court found "that Plaintiffs were not

to improve conditions,

subjected to genuine privations and hardship over an exte nded
period of time for purposes of their due process claim." Based on the allegations in Barber's complaint, which were speculative j.

many of

(plaintiff had not yet been transferred to

EJSP when he made some of these allegations concerning the poor conditions of confinement) at the time he filed his Complaint,

this Court finds that plaintiff's allegations concerning the "totality of circumstances" surrounding his confinement are not sufficient at this time to suggest that he has been "sub jected to genuine privations and hardship over an extended period of time for purposes of F.3d at 235. [his] due process claim." See Hubbard II, 538

Therefore,

the Court will dismiss the conditions of for failure to state a

confinement claim, claim at this rime.

without prejudice,

To the extent that these conditions continue

Hubbard I is the predecessor to Hubbard II. In Hubbard I, the Third Circuit remanded plaintiffs' case to the di strict court to apply the correct standard for a conditions of confinement claim by a detainee under the Fourteenth Am endment. 399 P.3d at 166-67. The district court subsequently ruled in defendants' favor and plaintiffs appealed, resulting in Hubbard II. 538 F.3d at 230.

20

for a longer period of time than suggested. by the NJDHS and NJDCC
administrat.ors, Barber may seek leave tc· re-cpen this case and

file an amended pleading. C. interference with the yail Claim

Barber next apPears to assert that the delivery of his mail
to the Annex, rather than directly tc him at EJSP,

violates his

First Amendment rigbits.
Inmates have a limited liberty interest in their mail under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 353, 358
(3d Cir.

Jones v.
549 U.S.

Brown, 1286

461 F.3d (2007)

2006),

cert.

denied,

Should plaintiff so choose to amend his Complaint to cure the deficiencies noted herein, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, Barber should note that when an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer performs any function in the case and "cannot be utilized to cure defects in the amended [complaint], unless the relevant portion is specifically incorporated in the new [complaint]." 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (footnotes omitted) An amended complaint may adopt some or all of the allegations in the original complaint, but the identification of the particular allegations to be adopted must be clear and explicit. To avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an amended complaint that is complete in itself. Id.
.

In Jones v. Brown, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the legal mail policy of state prison in openino legal mail outside the presence of the inmate violated the inmate's First Amendment right to freedom cf speech, and was not reasonably related to prison's legitimate penological interest in protecting health and safety of prisoners an.d staff. 461 F. 3d at 358. The Third Circuit also has held that "a cattern and cracti re o opening properly marked incorriinp court mail outside an inmate' s presence infringes communicat ion protected by the right to free speech. Such a practice chills protected expression arid may inhibit the inmate's ability to speak, protest, and complain openly, directly, and without reservation with the court." Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445, 1452 (3d Cir. 1995) (applying the Turner analysis) , implied overruling on other grounds recognized in Oliver v. Fauver, 118 F.3d 175, 177-78 (3d 21

However,

an inmate's constitutional right to send anc.

receive See

mail may be restricted for

Legitimate penologicai interests. 401, 407
(1959);

490 J.5 482 U. S. 78, 89 ::1987
.

Turner v.

Safley,

In Turner,

the Supreme Court of the

United States found that a prison regulation infringing on an inmate's consticutional rights is valid so tong as it is reasonably related to a legitimate nenclogical interest. 89. IS. at

The Court established a balancing test pursuant to which exercise of their

courts analyze prohibitions on prisoners'

constitutional rights by considering the following four factors: (1) whether prohibiting an inmate from exercising a

constitutional right is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest; exercising that right; (2) (3) whether there are alternative means of what effect accommodation of the other inmates, and the allocation

interest would have on guards, of prison resources; and (4)

whether there are ready alternatives

available that continue to serve the prison's interest without impinging constitutional rights. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91. The

Court also recognized that deference should be given to the decisions of prison administrators, especially when those Id.

decisions deal with issues of prison safety and security.

Cir. 1997) Thus, the assertion that legal mail is intentionally opened and read, delayed for an inordinate period of time, or stolen may state a First Amendment claim. See, e.g., Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 P.35 1422, 1431--32 (7th Cir. 1996.); Castillo v. Cook County Mail Room Dep't, 990 F.2d 304 (7th Cir, 1993).
.

22

The Lnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has anglied Turner in analvzina constitutional claims by civilly committed SVPs. WL 934413 (3d Cir. a Rivera v. Parch 29, Rogers,

224 Fed. Appx.

148,

2007

2007) (apolving Turner in analyzing

c.laims of SVPs t.hat opening of their packages violated their First Amendment rights;
.

Other courts likewise have aplie.d

Turner when analyzing claims brought by civilly committed SVP5 alleging First Amendment violaticns. WL 550528 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 28, Willis v. Smith, 2005

2005) (noting that status of SVPs

was substantially similar to that of prisoners and applying Turner to SVP claims concerning mail handling procedures); v. Mooney, 2008 WL 4527792, at *4 n. 7 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, Ivey

2008) (applying Turner,

but noting that a civil confinement is Francis v.

significantly different from a criminal confinement); Watson, 2006 WL 2716452, at *3 (D.S.C. Sept. 22,

2006) (citing

cases that have applied Turner in cases involving civilly confined persons); Marsh v. 2008 WL 821623, Appx. at *20 179 (2. at *5 (M.D. Liberty Behavioral Health Care, Fla. Mar. 27, 2008), Inc.,

aff'd 330 Fed. 2008 WL 2498241,

(ll Cir. Minn.

2009);

Beaulieu v. 2008)

Ludeman,

June 18,

EssentiaLly, the First Amendment analysis under Turner mirrors the due process analysis under Younerg; in hotti instances, courts must balance the constitutional interests of confined persons against the legitimate interests of the staterun institution in which they reside. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 2008 WL 2498241, at n. 15 (finding Turner to be consistent with Youngberg because "it will not allow a Program detainee's right to be restricted unless there is a valid institutional reason for doing so") 23

in Rivera,

the Third CircuTh affirmed the district court's

ruling that a facility housing civiL.. y committed SVPs has a J.euitimate interest in. both the safety of its facility and the rehabilitation of its pas. t tiE.o 1 citir Waterman v. 1999)
\

Rivera, 5. 3d 218,

224 215

Fed. Appx. 3d Cir.

at 151

Farmer,

183

LIlt

is beyond dispute that New Jersey has a legit.imate

oeno1cica1 interest in rehabilitatin its most dangerous and compulsive sex offenders."))
.

Specifically,

the court upheld as staff to open

constitutional the STU' s policy that allows

packages not marked as "legal mail" to assure that the packages do not contain contraband and residents, (i.e., items either harmful to staff
.

or detrimental to rehabilitation)

The court

found that plaintiff was free to send and receive mail so long as the content of his mail was not sexually explicit. Moreover, the

Third Circuit found no error in the district court's conclusion that there were no ready alternatives to mail security and that the STU's policy appeared to be the only viable alternative, supporting the reasonableness of the mail policy. Fed. Appx. Here, at 151. this Court likewise finds that it is beyond dispute where plaintiff and other SVP residents Rivera, thus

224

that th.e staff at. EJSP,
are newly housed,

has a lecitimate interest in both the safety of As noted above,

its facility and rehabilitating its patients.

these civilly committed persons are convicted sexual predators, wh:cn makes safety at EJSe a very important concern. The staff

24

clean

must determine if any items coming throuh the maiJ. rose They

a threat to the safety of th.e staff or the other residents.

also must decide if any of the materials passing through the mail
: 000*0

be detrimental to a resident's therany.

Consequently,

as

set forth by the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit,

the Court

must defer to the nniscn officials when it comes to issues of managing a safe and operational prison facility. In this case,

delivery of letters and packages at the Avenel facility located close by, where the staff is trained with respect to SVP issues assures that harmful but also allows This new

unlike the general NJDCC staff at EJSP,

materials are not being passed through the mail,

for specialized treatment regarding SVP residents. policy,

which appears to be preliminarily instituted because of clearly bears a

the recent transfer of the SVP residents to EJSP,

rational relationship to both interests discussed above. Moreover, in his interference with the mail claim, Barber does

not allege a single incident where his mail has not been delivered or received. Rather, his only complaint seems to be

that his mail is being sent to another facility instead of EJSP where he now resides. prison Barber does not articulate a claim that He clearly

cubic La

are intentionally delaying his mail.

admits tha.t b.c is free to use and receive nail and packages in

A single interference with the delivery of an inmate's personal mail, without more, does not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation. Morgan v. Montayne, 516 F.2d 1367 (2d Sir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 973 (1976).

25

neneral.

Therefore,

the Court will dismiss this claim without and allow Barber to file an amended

ureiuoice at this time, p·ieaaing, [ 2

oonsstent witn the pleading requirements or Rule

and amended pleadino requirements of Rule 15 of the as discussed in fn. 10 of this

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Opinion, B. suppa,

if Barber in fact wishes to pursue suc.h a clairt.

Deurvation of Prcoertv Claim Barber also appears to be asserting a claim that he has been

deprived of his personal property in violation of his constitutional rights. The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part here, liberty, or

that the State may not "deprive any person of life, p ro p erty , without due process of law[.]"

The "due process of

law" essentially requires that the government provide a person notice and opportunity to be heard in connection with the deprivation of life, liberty or property. Zappan v. 211, Pennsylvania (3d Cir.

Board of Probation and Parole,

152 Fed. Appx.

220

2005) ("The essential requirements of any procedural due process claim are notice and the opportunity to be heard."). Hence, to

establish a prima facie case of a procedural due process violation, a rlaintiff must establish: il a denrivat ion of a (2) See

constitutionally protected liberty or property interest,

state action,
Rusnak v.

and

(3;

constitutionally inadequate process.
Appx. 555, 558 (3d Cir. 2002)

Williams,

44 Fed.

("Procedural due process claims,

to be val id, must allege state
26

o
it

C) CD Cl Cl
Cl Cu ct C)

Cl CD
Z

it

Cl CD Cl
C)

Cl C) C) Cl Cl 0
C) Cu it Cu Cu C) H. 0 CD CD C) it
L<

S
C)
it

CD it

0 CD Cl
HCl CD C) CD H
HC)
it it

C)

o
Hit

Cl Cl C) 0 Cl Cu H C) 0 Cu

H-

0 Cl
it
it

5
it C) C) CD C) CD () C) Q C) Q Cl
CD Cl C) C) Cl CD

Cl 0

it CD Cl Cu

Cu C)

it Cl it 0 Cl C) Cl C) Cl C) H Cl

0 C)
H 0 C) CD

H CD 0 it it H-

C)
it 0 it Cl Cl CD C)

it

C) CD Cu
r]

) C)

o
it

C)
C) CD H

Cu

CD H H Cl CD CD C) H it Cl C) CD H
it Cu HC)

Cu

Cl CD CD

C) H it C) Cu it

i.

it

Cl

CD Cl

Cu H)

C) 0 it
0
Hit ct

C) it Cl C) rt Cu C) Cl C) HC) CD

Cl
H-

Cl CD HCl it
H C)

it
CD

it

o
C)
it

CD Cu C)
it

Cl H H-

Cl Cu it
HCu Cl Cu

Cl
0 Hit it Hit it

5
C) 0 C) Cl Cu C)
I) C) Cu
C)

C) H C) CD Cl
HC) Cl
H-

CD Cl CD
it Cu

Cl it Cu

Cu

it CD H HCu Cl H

CD

Cl

it

Cl

CC)

Cl
it

CD Cl C)

Cl
C) CD Cl

C)
it

C) H Cl
C) Cl

0 C) CD
`-C) C) `-C) it

C) Cl CD C)

C) Cl CD Cl

5
Cu
Cu

it it

Cl CD Cl
H C)
H-

C) CD Cl Cl C) Cu CD

C) C) Cl 0

Cl
C)
H-

H-

it H-

H CD

C) H Cl
HCD C)
it

S
) C) CD 0
it Cl
H C)

H
C)
H
it

Cl
it Cu Cl CD
it

CD 5 Cl

H)
C)

H

H

Hit Hit H

Cu H
H-

Hit C) 0
H-

Cu C) Cl Cu it it
-

Cl Cu H CD H Cl
it CD CD

C)
CD Cl
it

C)

C) 0

it

C) Cu
it

C)
0

C)
Cl

Cu

C) HC)
it
H-

it

o
Cl Cu
it

it

C) CD C) it

Cl CD C)
CD C) H H Hit

H0 C) Cl CD C)
C) it

it Cl it 0 Cl it 0
it 0 it
C) 0

5
H-

0 C) Cu CD Cu

Cl it H-

0 Cl
0

Cu

C)

H0

Cl C) Cu
it

C) CD H `C) HC)
H

Cu C) C) 0 E HHC)

0 C) 0 it

5
C) Cl 0 it CD
C) it

H

Cl Cu
HH 0

o
HCu

S
Cl Cl C)
0 it it 0 X H0 it 0 it C) C) C) CD C) HC) Hit C) C) it CD

Cl
Cl Cl H-

it

5
Cl C) H-

C) 0 C) Cl C) it HCl C)
CD C) H it CD C) it H

Cl CD

it

it
CD H HC) CD C) CD

5

it Cl Hit it CD

C) CD I)

CD
C) CD H it

Cu

it

Cl it
CD

CC) it Cl CD
C) it CD

it H Cl
C) C) Cu it Cl

it

H
C)
·

Cl C)

Hit it CD

CD

H
it 0 C)

Cl
it
--

C) CD Cl

Cu C) CD

CD C) CD

C) HC) CD H C) 0 it HC) CD

Cl

5
C)
Cu it Cl it H-

Hit `-C)
Cl C) CD

Cl
H it H0

CD

HH

5
C) CD
H) 0 it

Hit Cl

Cl Cl

Cl

C) 0

0

Cl Cu
it

it

CC)

it Hit

Cl Cu C) it H)

C) C)
it 0 Cl CD C) it `-C) 0

Cl CD

Cl

CD C) it it 0 C)

Hit Cl C) 0

Cl Cu C)

it Cl Cu it

Cl Cu H

Cl C) 0 it CD C) it CD

Cl Cl
CD C)

Cu C) Cl Cu

it
Cl CD

Cl
Cu CD H
·

C)

C)
it 0

H CD C) 0 C) Cl 0 C) CD H H

Cl CD CD C

Cl CD

C) C) Cl

C CD CD Cl

Cl C) CC)

CD Cu it

C)
Cl C) 0

C)
Cu H CD H H

Cx)

H-

5
it C)
·

C) 0 C) it Cl

Cl

HC) CD

Cu C) Cl

Cl
it Cl CD
·

it 0 H H

Cl CD

it Cl CD HC)

Cl C) 0 Cl CD C) it `-C)

5
C)
HH Cl H-

Cl CD
(I)

H it Cu

C)

0 C) C) CD Cu H 0 H 0 C) CD C) CC Hit

HC) it CD C) CD H

it Cl
0 it CD C) it H)

CD Cl C) HC) CD C) it Cu C)

H C) CD H it H0

it C) Cu C) H it CD C) CD C) it H

H CD

CD Cl
H-

C) Cu
it
H)

0
C) H
-

C) C) Cl
CD C)

5
C)
H it

Cl
CD

C)

C)

5

5
Cu Cl it CD 0 Cl

it
Cl CD Cl CD

HC)

0 it

0 it Cl
CD

Cl Cl Cl Cl

H CD C) it

0 C) CD 0 C) CD C)

5
U) Cl

CD C) it Cu it 0 it it

it Hit CD

Cl CD it 0 C) H
H-

0 it it Cl 0

Cl Cl Cl

CC
Cl HC)

CC
Cl CD it

H HH CC Cl CD it Cl HC) it CD HC)

0
CC)

it Cl CD

H-

5
CD C) H H Cu Cl
-

0
Cu it H C)
·

09 J -0

it Cl
Cu it

H it Cu CD

HC)

H CD Cl
C)

it C) Cl
CD it Cl CD CD H it

0 C) H it C) Cu CD

Cl 0
Cl
CD C) it Cl

C) C)
Hit

Cl C)
HC) CD it HCl

C)

Cl C) 0 Cl CD C) it

C)

--.

H-

H)

0
C) Cu C)
Hit H

5

Cu C) Cl

it C) it

0 C) 0 it C) CD H

it CD Cu Cl
-

Cl
0 C) CD

CD

S

Cu it H

C) it C) C) Hit H)

-

C) it Cl

Cl

CD

--

0
·

C)

residents from the hearnv facility no EJSP were neither arbinrarv or caprici ous, but plainly were lmp±E.mentecl i.n order to address

the loCistics of the move and to further a legitimate goal of maintainina a safe and o.rqanized mass trans far of SUPs facility to another. In this regard, from one

Barber simply has not

demonstrated a constitunionally--recognized property interest in the continued possession of unrestricted personal property necessary to satisfy the threshold reuirement of a deprivation of property interest, (D. Minn. Jan. 8, See Semler v. Lineman, 2010 WL 145275, *25

2010). to the extent that Barber was deprived of he has a

Furthermore,

personal property as a result of the transfer to EJSP, post-deprivation remedy.

Property loss caused by the intentional

acts of government officials does not give rise to a procedural due process claim under § 1983 where a post-deprivation remedy satisfying minimum procedural due process requirements is available under state law. (1981) Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527

(overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. 474 U.S. 115 327 (1986)); Hudson v. see also Zinermon v. Palmer, 4.8 U S 597 Buroh, fl984; 494

Williams, U S. ll,

(1990);

Holman,

79.2 F.2d at 856..

The New Jersey Tort Claims Act

In Lopan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982), the Supreme Court explained, However, that post--deprivation remedies do not satisfy the Due Process Clause if the deprivation of property is accomplished pursuant to established state procedure rather than through random, unauthorized action. 455 U.S. at 435-36. But see Tillman v. Lebanon Co. Correctional Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 421 n.l2 :3d. Cir. 2000) (citing United 28

c"NJTJA"'

,

N.J.

STAT.

ANN.

§ 59: 1--1 et seq.,

orovides a post--

deprivation judic.ial i.emedy to persons who believe they were deprived of procerty at the hands o.f the State or local :c;ernpen7 ·of America, See 1 F. Sciman, i2 F.Zd at 85; Ascuith v. 419 (D.N.J. 1998),

Volunteers

Supp.2d 405,

aff'd 186 F.3d

407

3d Cir.

1999)
any deprivation of property claim asserted by

Therefore,

Barber here will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, B. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii),

Unlawful Search Claim Barber alleges that he was subjected to a pat-search and

finger scan 27, 2010.

(Ion search)

as he was coming in from the yard on May

He further alleges that he was subjected to a strip 2010, when he was walking to the East House. A

search on May 18,

cell search also was conducted outside of his presence on May 18, 2010. It would appear that plaintiff is asserting that as a such searches are unconstitutional and

civilly committed person,

violate his riahts under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in. their persons seizures," U. S. CONST.
. ..

against unreasonable searches and. IV. Reasonableness under the

amend.

Fourth Amendment `depends on all of the circumstances surroundinq

States v. James Daneil Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 53 (1993) ) (in `extraordinary situations" such as routine deduction of fees from a prisoner' s account even without authorization, post--deprivation remedies may be adequate)
29

o
`<

N) Cl CD Cl CD
L-1-

H CD

Di
a).
H

Di
it (ii

C) C) Cl
HI

CD CD Cl
<<C
it

HDi <C Di

N) N) HCD Cl CD)
N) a) CD)
-.

0 E) HLI it CD Cl it Di
it

Cl H H<C Di C) Di H CD Di CD

-

Cl H CD it H HDi N) N)
N) N)
a)

it CD Cl

0 Di
N) CD HCD Cl Di Cl C) N) CD Di it Di Cl ) CD Di

Di H Cl Di CD C). HDi it CD H Di

Di C).

CD) C) <C CD H Di

C)

N) 0 Di H it Cl Hit CD CD N) N) it Cl CD

Cl H Di C) it H-

a)

Cl CD it Cl

N)

it

Di

H CD
0
CD N)

H0 Di Hi 0 H Di C) it Cl Di it

Di Di Cl N)

CD CD Di H C) Cl U)

Cl

H-

CD CD C) Di Di
it
H-CDH-DiitQ

H-QHiH-CDN)Cl DiDiDiN)0Di HitDij CD CD Di N) it <C Cl HHCDHHCClH-CDDiCl CDOCDCD itC)Cl DiC)Cj) H-DiN)CDit itH-it<<DiitH

CD Di
0

CD it Di N) Cl HCD Di
it cC ) CD
H-

Di N) C) Cl

it 0

S
Di Cl

Cl
Di ()
---

N)

C) Di
it

H
N)

(Di · C!)

CD

Cl
Di
N)

C) CD H<C
0 Di Di it CD

*

CD CD 0
0 Cl H

CD

Di it
CD
CD

0'

CD
CD Di N)
H-

C)
H<C

N) Di H-

Cl CD C) Di

HLCD
Ci)

Di

CD

CD
Di cC )
Ui

CD
H HN

C)
Di

<C H
N)

Di
0

N)

Cl
Cl
<<

N)

C) Cl HCD Di CD H
--

Di C) <<

C)
it it CD Cl
·

C)

CD U) it CD Di it CD H CD CD it
CD HI

CC Di
·

<C
Hit

Di
H CD D i) C Cl Di N)
CD Cl

01

C) it Cl CD H Di C) it CD CD

C-n

a)

it Cl

U' H-

Di

C)
F-I

Cl CD C) Di Di CD CD Cl Di H Cl 0 CD CD C) CD
N) N) CD
a).

Cl H H0)
a)

CD CD Di H C) Cl Cl Di
cC) Di it

Di Di Cl H Cl ·CIi

(Si
-

C)
HI CD H-

Di

Cl
0 Di H
·

Di Di C
H-

Di
CD

C) 0 Di C) N) Di CD H0 Di it Di it

it

N)

C it
Di it
(ii
`

Di Cl

CO Cl)

Di cC) 0)
N)
(ii C-C)

Di it CD CD Di HDi CD it HN)
N)
-

N) Di Cl 0 H Hit
Cl) it H-

it Cl CD

U))

N)
·

C) C) Di <C 0. Di U) U' 0' C) N) Di Cl Di CD it 0 N) 0 C) Cl CD H

Di U)

H-

C-C)

C) Di Di Cl

C) 0 Di Cl Di C) it CD Cl

it Cl CD Cl
U)
CD

<C

it

Cl H HCD 0 Di CD H CD

CD Cl

co
·

H Cl Di 0 U' 0) CD
--

Cl

it

D i) X CD C) Di

Di Di it Di H CD

N) HDi Cl HDi
it

C)
it

Cl H

H-

H CD Di C) Cl CD Cl H Cl CD Cl Di <C CD Di 0 H Cl CD Cl CD H CD 0 Di Di N)

H-

Cl H C)

Di it H Di CD

HCD CD

0 Di it 0

H<C CD CD

0 N) it Cl

Di

cC)

C)
0 Di H it
Cii Di Cl H CD

Cl Di H Di CD CD Cl H-

C)
N)
LCD

H-

H-

Di

C Hit Cl

CD 0 Di CD H CD

CD H Di Di N)

H CD Di CD 0 Di Di Cl N) CD

a)

Di it H0 Di

it Cl Di it
N) CD cC) Hit H-

·

C) C)
CD Di it CD

a)
--

0 it H0 Di

0 Di 0 Di

Cl CD

CD CD

Cl
Di

CD

CD CD Di H

C) C)
-

Cl HN) Hit F-C 0 N) Di CD
CD X Cl CD it Cl CD

-

C)
Cl
a)

H CD CD

Di

Cl

CD

Cl 0 Cl

C!) CD CD

C)

it

CD N) N) CD C) it CD

C)
0 Di H it it Cl Di it
·

C)

Di

Di H Cl CD

0 N) Di Di Di Cl

a)
C-C)

0 H CC
·

<<C

C)

it 0

Cl Di C) it Di it H0 Di 0 Cl CD CD H <C CD Cl

Cl CD H Di Di Di Cl CD N
N) CD cC) Hit Hit Di it H0 Di
-

U)

CD CD H-

CU CD N) N)

Di <C

C)
Di H Cl
CD

C)
0 N)

a) N)

N

0)
Lii C)

H-

it

<C

Cl CD H CD 0 Di

·

Cl H HCD 0 Di CD H

Di it CD

N)
-

<<C

H-itH-CDH-QDiDiN) Di<<DiN)CDDiC)N) C) ClitDiCDN)Cl H-itHN) <<H ClClDiitit H0 CDDiCDQClU)N)H-<1 Diitit CDCD DiDi it H-itC)H-C)C) CDN)itCl DiDi0<< ODiDiitHC)C) OCDititClH-DiClHN)CDHCDititDiDi OC) <<CCDit C)0DiDiCl CDH-it ON)DiCDHDi ClH Di N)itH-DiDiN)Di HiN) CDClDiCDQ. H- H CD Cl 0 HCl DiCDCDCDDiHit CDCDC) CDDitH-HC)ClDiC)HitClit() CDOHO CDCDClDi DiC)H-DiCDHHDi it itCD DiHitN) Q<<H-CDDi Cl N) ClXN)C)CDN) CDCl CD 0 C)· HCDON)C)Di Cl· CD C) H N) N) H 0 ClitClCDOit HDiCD CDCl C)HIititHHCD CDClHCD Cl itCDO.ClDi5 Di Di· DiDiCD DiH-Cl · H-ClDi ClCDDiO H Cl HhN)--CDC)C) ClDiDi CJ)COCD HC)C)Cl-- DiDi H-C)OHOititit <CCDDiH-C)OHDiClDi<CHDiit C)ititDiCDCDDiCD <<CD C)itDiDiH Cl <<<<CDN)C) Di CD Di HCl H CD <<C CD HU) HDi Cl H<C HCl Di Di N)
CD

Cl Di H it HC) Di N) Di
H

Di H CD

searches of pretria.l detainees do not violate the Fourth Amendment) Corrseouen7lv, involuntarIly committed satierLts and SVEs,
are entitled to some protection under

like rre:riai deairiees, the Fourth Amendment,

but they do not have an expectation of ee Serna

privacy equal to an individual in society generally. v. Goodno, 567 F. 3d 944, 948 (8th Fir.

2009) (noting t1iat pretrial

detainees are kent in custody because there is cause to believe they are dangerous; similarly, commitment under Minnesota law as

a sexually dangerous person requires a finding of dangerousness), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 465 (2009); Allison v. Snyder, 332 F. 3d

1076--79

(7th Fir.

2003) (SV5s may be subjected to conditions that

advance goals such as preventing escape and assuring the safety of others, cert. 211, even though they may not technically be "punished"), 540 U.S. 985 (2003); Aiken v. Nixon, 146 236 F. (2d Cir. Supp.2d 2003); 786

denied, 233

(N.D.N.Y.

2002),

aff'd 80 Fed.

Appx.

see also,

Jennings v.

New York State Office of Mental Health,

In Bell v. Wolfish, the United States Supreme Court, in determining the constitutionality of post--visitation body cavity searches, held that a reasonableness test should be employed when examining the constitutionality of a search that encroaches upon the pa rsonal privacy of an inmate and the integrity of the inmate's body. In other words, courts must balance the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider the scone of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted. 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (a prison regulation which infringes upon an inmate's constitutionally recoonized right is valid only if it is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest) 31

F.

Sunc.

376,

382,

384

S. D.N.Y.

1392)

,

aff' 5,

977

F. 25 731

2d

Cir.

1992) Similar... y, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth because SVPs have been c±vollv committed

Circuit has held that,

subsequent to criminal convictions and have been adjudged to pose a dancer to the health and safety of others, uJegotimate, they are sub):eot to

non--punotie government interests" sunm as and effective management of Blanas, [the]

"maintainIng ]all security,

detention facility." Jones v. 2004)
.

393 F.3d 918,

932

(9 Cir.

Thus,

the reasonableness of a particular search or

seizure is determined by reference to the detention context and is a fact-intensive inquiry. Here, j. Barber's

with respect to his Fourth Amendment claim,

primary argument appears to be that any prison actions that did not specifically take into account his classification as a SVP is per se a constitutional violation. employed by Wolfish, Applying the balancing test

this Court finds that the manner and place

in which Barber was pat-searched and finger--scanned were plainly reasonable and did not violate Barber's Fourth Amendment rights. First, the pat search and finger scan were conducted when Farber

was returning from ohe prison tarS and before he could return to his living quarters. U. See Semler v. Ludeman, 2010 WL 145275, *19,

Minn.

Jan.

8,

2010) (finding no Fourth Amendment violation

where plaintiffs were required to submit to pat searches following gym use and: kitchen work assignments that included

32

Di N

Hi it CD

Hi
CD
Hi N

C) CD it C)
Hi it it

it

CD Hi

N CD

CD

Hi

CD

Hi CD
Hi

Di C) C) HC)) CD

CC)

CU C) C)
CD it
L<

C) CD C) CD

Di C) CD C) C)
it it

it C) Hi C) C) Di

N C) C) C) HC) C) it C) N

C) () C) Di Hi CD Di HC)

C) C) C)
N Hi

Di it Hi Hi
it Hi

CD CD C) HC) C)
CC)

C) it H-

o
C)
Hi C) Hi C) CD N

Hi
C) C) C) C) C)
H-

C) N

CD C)
C)
CD it C)

C)
C) C) C) Hi CD Di C) C)

)

Di N

CD Di C) C) N C) C) CD

N CD Di C) Hi Di

C) CD C)

Z
C)) C) C)
C) Hi H-

C) CD N C) CD Di C) it C) C) it CD C) Di C) Di C) DL CD C) N C) C)

C) C) ) C) Dii C) )

C)

it C) N Hi C) CD

C)
C) Di Hi C) Hi

C) HN

CD CU it
C) CD N

o
C) C) N N C) C) it
it

C) Di Di C) C) C) C)
Di
it

C) C)
C) C)
-

C) C)

C)
CD
CD CD

N CD Di C) C) CD C) iQ