KITCHEN v. ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing pltf's amended complt.; dismissing defts. Department of Corrections, Officers Melitta, Williams, Lynn, Caggiano and Coleman with prejudice; directing the pltf. file a second amended complt. within 60 days from this order; if within 60 days pltf. does not file his second amended complt. the Court will direct the Clerk to administratively terminate this matter, etc.. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 4/11/2013. (nr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ARTHUR KITCHEN,

Civil Action No.
12—2199 (JLL)

Plaintiff,
V.

MORNDUM OPINION
ND ORDER

ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY et al.,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s amended
complaint
1.

[Docket Entry No.

On April 12,

2012,

22],

and it appearing that:

Plaintiff submitted his original

complaint asserting that he had been assaulted by
unidentified correctional officers.
2.

[Docket Entry No.

1.]

The Court directed the Clerk to execute service upon the
Attorney General,

who was designated to act as a

constructive agent for service;

the Court also directed

Plaintiff to file his amended complaint
Defendants)

once the relevant records were provided to him

by the Attorney General.’

l

(identifying his

[Docket Entry No.

2]

In conjunction with so ordering, the Court screened
Plaintiff’s complaint and explained to him: (1) the pleading
standard; (2) the fact that a correctional facility or
a
department of corrections were not cognizable “persons”
for the
purposes of a Section 1983 suit; and (3) the substantive
standard
applicable to the Eighth Amendment claims. [Docket Entry
No. 2.]

3.

On November 18,

2012,

the Attorney General filed a letter

informing the Court that Plaintiff was served with the
relevant records.
therefore,

[Docket Entry No.

17.]

The Court,

directed Plaintiff to file his amended pleading,

and later allowed him additional time to replead.
Entries Nos.

18 and 21.]

In response,

his amended complaint at bar.
4.

[Docket

Plaintiff submitted

[Docket Entry No.

23.]

The amended complaint named as Defendants in this matter the
State of New Jersey,

the Department of Corrections,

the

Essex County Correctional Facility and five correctional
officers,

i.e.,

and Coleman.

Officers Melitta,

See id.

at 1.

Williams,

Lynn,

Caggiano

Plaintiff clarified that he

named Officers Melitta and Lynn as Defendants because,
the evening of the alleged attack,

on

these officers were on

duty supervising the floor and the tier where Plaintiff was
housed.

See id.

at 2.

Officers Williams,

Plaintiff also stated that he named

Caggiano and Coleman as Defendants

because these officers held supervisory positions at the
Facility where Plaintiff was attacked.
5.

j at 3.

The pleading standard was already detailed by the Court in
its prior decision screening Plaintiff’s original complaint
[Docket Entry No.
addition,

2]

and,

thus,

requires no reiteration.

the Court already explained to Plaintiff that a

correctional facility or a department of corrections were

Page 2 of

6

In

not entities cognizable for the purposes of a Section 1983
action.

.

jj

Therefore,

Plaintiff’s challenges against

these entities will be dismissed with prejudice.
6.

Plaintiff’s claims against the State of New Jersey will be
dismissed with prejudice since such claim is conclusively
barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
2

7.

The foregoing leaves the Court solely with Plaintiff’s
claims against five officers,

three of whom were named as

Defendants because they held supervisory positions,

and two

were named on the grounds that they were present in the
facility at the time of the alleged attack.

However,

Plaintiff’s claims cannot be based on the theory of
respondeat superior or on the fact that someone was present
at a certain location;

rather,

Plaintiff must assert facts

showing each defendant’s actual personal involvement in the
alleged wrongs.

Ashcroft v.

(2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Igbal,

556 U.S.

662,

675-78

Twombly,

550 U.S.

544,

555

2

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state for
money damages “unless the State has waived its immunity, or
unless Congress has exercised its undoubted power under § 5 of
the Fourteenth Amendment to override that immunity.” Welch v.
Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472-473
(1987) (plurality opinion)
The Supreme Court previously found
that Congress did not intend to rescind the States’ Eleventh
Amendment immunity in enacting Section 1983.
Quern v.
Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979); see also Will v. Michigan Dept.
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989) (“Congress, in passing
§
1983, had no intention to disturb the States’ Eleventh Amendment
immunity and so to alter the federal-state balance in that
respect was made clear in our decision in Quern”)
Page 3 of

6

(2007); Monell v.
Rizzo v.
F.3d 347,
8.

Goode,
353

Here,

Dep’t of Soc.

423 U.S.

(3d Cir.

362

Servs.,

436 U.S.

(1976); Evancho v.

658

(1978);

Fisher,

423

2005).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint:

(a)

unambiguously

states that he was assaulted by individuals other than the
five officers named as Defendants;

and

(b)

strongly suggests

that Plaintiff is unable to identify his alleged assailants.
However,

out of abundance of caution,

the Court finds it

warranted to allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to
conduct discovery and re—amend his pleading.

IT IS,

therefore,

on this

th
5

day of April, 2013,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint,
22,

is dismissed;

Docket Entry No.

and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against the State,

the

Department of Corrections and the Facility are dismissed with
prejudice and shall not be re-raised; and it further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Officers Melitta,
Williams,

Lynn,

Caggiano and Coleman are dismissed with prejudice

and shall not be re-raised;

and it further

ORDERED that Plaintiff may file his second amended
complaint,

identifying his assailants as the defendants in this

matter and detailing those defendants’
involvement in the alleged attack;

actual personal

and it is further

Page 4 of

6

ORDERED that such second amended complaint shall be filed

within sixty days from the date of entry of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order;
ORDERED that,

and it is further
within fifteen days from the date of entry of

this Memorandum Opinion and Order,
desires,

Plaintiff may,

if he so

serve upon the Attorney General an additional,

well-

thought-through questionnaire detailing Plaintiff’s recollections
about his alleged assailants in order to allow the Attorney
General a meaningful and viable opportunity to search the
records
of the officers on duty during the evening of the alleged
attack
and,

thus,

potentially assist Plaintiff in discovering the

identities of his assailants;
ORDERED that,

and it is further

within sixty days from being served with

Plaintiff’s questionnaire,

the Attorney General shall conduct a

bona fide effort in searching the records for the purposes
of
determining the information sought by Plaintiff and serve
Plaintiff with a written response stating said information,
any such information is discovered;
ORDERED that,

and it is further

within fifteen days from being served with the

Attorney General’s response,

Plaintiff shall file with the Clerk

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that,

if

in the event Plaintiff fails to file his

second amended complaint within the period allotted in
this

Page 5 of

6

Memorandum Opinion and Order,

the Court will direct the Clerk to

administratively terminate this matter;
ORDERED that,

terminated,

and it is further

in the event this matter is administratively

Plaintiff may have it reopened if,

eighty days from the date of such termination,
(a)

within hundred
Plaintiff submits:

a written statement showing good cause as to why he
failed to

file his second amended complaint within the period
allotted in
this Memorandum Opinion and Order; and

(b)

his second amended

complaint executed in accordance with the guidance provided
herein; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum
Opinion

and Order upon the Attorney General by means of
electronic
delivery;

and it is finally

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum
Opinion

and Order upon Plaintiff by certified mail,

return receipt

requested.

1

e:
L.

LINARES
/United States District Judge

Page 6 of

6