BURNEY v. KIMBALL et al

Filing 3

OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 1/15/2015. (ld, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JAMAR BURNEY,
Civil Action No.

13-3126

(CCC)

Plaintiff,
v.

SGT.

N.

KIMBALL,

:

OPINION

et al.,

Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
JAMAR BURNEY, Plaintiff pro se
#000641
East Jersey State Prison
Special Treatment Unit
8 Production Way, CN—905
Avenel, New Jersey 07001
—

CECCHI,

District Judge

Plaintiff,

Jamar Burney,

an involuntarily committed person

pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act
30:4—27,24,
pauperis.

et seq.,

(“SVPA”),

N.J.S.A.

seeks to bring this action in forms

Based on his affidavit of indigence,

the Court will

grant pl6intiff’s application t.o proceed in forma pauperis
(“IEP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)

and order the Clerk of

the Court to file the Complaint.
At this time,
to 28 U.S.C.

the Court must review the Complaint,

§ 1915(e) (2) (B),

pursuant

to determine whether it should be

dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff’s claims asserting the use of excessive force and
denial of medical care should proceed at this time, but that his

denial of freedom of association and state law defamation claims
should be dismissed without prejudice.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Jamar Burney (“Plaintiff”), brings this civil
action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the following
defendants:

Sergeant M. Kimball, State Correctional Officer

(“SCO”) Brown; SCO Higgins; and SCO T. Nacca.’
Complaint, Caption, and ¶1 4b, 4c.)

(Docket 1 1,

The following factual

allegations are taken from the Complaint, and are accepted for
purposes of this screening only.

The Court has made no findings

as to the veracity of Plaintiff’s allegations.
Plaintiff alleges that, on May 9, 2013, Defendant Higgins
caine to the South Unit, at the East Jersey State Prison—Special
Treatment Unit (“EJSP-STU”), and threatened Plaintiff with

This
1 Court notes that Plaintiff filed an earlier Complaint,

Burney v. Hyatt, et al., Civil No. 13—2263 (CCC), on April 10,
2013, one month before filing the instant action. That earlier
Complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
2

“severe bodily harm.”

(Id., ¶ 6.)

Another officer, SCO Aziz

allegedly observed the incident but did not report it.

(Id.)

The next day, on May 10, 2013, Plaintiff was admitted to
the “Annex Facility Hospital” for treatment of a blood clot in
his leg.
him.

He was returned to D—Unit until a doctor could see

On May 12, 2013, at about 2:15 p.m., Defendant Higgins

came up to Plaintiff while he was on the telephone with his wife
and proceeded to punch Plaintiff in the face.

Defendant Brown

had admitted Higgins in the Unit area and had observed Higgins’
actions.

She came out of the booth and stood between Plaintiff

and Higgins and told Higgins to stop punching Plaintiff.
Higgins hit Plaintiff a couple times more and left the unit.
Plaintiff alleges that he sustained a fractured jaw from the
incident.

He also alleges that Higgins had been assigned to

another unit that day, but came to D—Unit for the purpose of
assaulting Plaintiff.

(Id.)

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Kimball, the
supervising officer, “failed to allow a nurse or a doctor to
examine [Plaintiff’s] jaw,” and disregarded Plaintiff’s “pleas”
for medical attention.
from pain.

Plaintiff now cannot “talk properly”

(Id.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Kimball authorized Higgins
to leave his post to assault Plaintiff, and that Kimball and
3

Defendant Nacca laughed about the incident.
2

(Id.)

Plaintiff

contends that Kimball stated that, “the next time [Plaintiff]
talks to the Star Ledger, he’ll think twice.”

(Id.)

In an addendum filed on May 24, 2013, Plaintiff admits that
he was taken to the hospital on May 14, 2013 for treatment of
his injuries.

He generally alleges that supervisory officials,

Unit Director Shantay Braine Adams and Clinical Director Merrill
Main ignore these “serious situations” with the Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) officers.

(Dkt. * 2, Addendum at 2.)

Plaintiff further alleges that there are no investigations of
these assaults on residents by DOC officers, but rather the
residents are charged with disciplinary infractions.

(Id. at 2-

4.)
Plaintiff next complains that, on May 15, 2013, residents
of South Unit were brought to the yard while officers searched
the residents’ cells.

Plaintiff alleges that this conduct has

occurred for three weeks “in retaliation and harassment of some
residents telling the truth” about correctional officers
committing assault on residents.

(Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff further

alleges that the videotape of Higgins assaulting Plaintiff was
lost.

He also alleges that Higgins broke his hand when he

Plaintiff
2 also alleges that Defendant Nacca participated in
Defendant Higgins’ assault.
4

struck Plaintiff,
the incident.
places.

(Id.

but that is not mentioned in any reports of

Plaintiff’s jaw allegedly was broken in three
at 5-7.)

Plaintiff also alleges that he was returned to the same
environment where he was assaulted and that Defendant Higgins
has a post in that area.

He alleges that he had an I.V. when

Higgins assaulted him on May 12,

2013,

and that his parents and

girlfriend came to the EJSP-STU the day he was assaulted but
were refused visitation.

Plaintiff further alleges that his

parents came to the Union Memorial Hospital before,
after his surgery for his broken jaw,
see Plaintiff.

(Id.

but were not permitted to

at 7-10.)

Plaintiff alleges that since May 20,

2013,

he has been

locked in cell #18 in D—Unit with no phone calls,
showers,

etc.

during and

visits,

Plaintiff further complains that the

administrators and Internal Affairs Department at EJSP—STU are
ignoring his requests to speak to witnesses of the assault,

and

that Ombudsman Kenneth Rozon is ‘hiding statements that he
received from

[Plaintiff’s]

witnesses”

(Id,

at 11,

12,)

Plaintiff asserts violations of his freedom of association and
defamation of character,

in addition to claims of excessive

force and denial of medical care.

5

(Id.

at 13.)

(3)

CD

N

C)
F’U
C)
H
C)
U)
F’
C)
cC)

U))

Hi

*

F
Ii

C
C)

)

Di
F

CD

hi

CX
hi
0
C)
CD
C)

H‘F)
H
F

C)

()
Ct’,

(U
(I
F
CD
U)

hi

H

‘U
CD
U.
(D

t
U)
CD

(F)
h-h

F

<

-

‘H
‘U
LU

I

C)

U

I

F)

F)
F)
F

F)
F)

F-f

C)

F

I

C
))

f

F)

U

C

C

F
U
(I

I)

U

)

F

C’

I>

F

I

F

I

F)

I

))

)

F)

I

F’,

F)

F

C

I(C
U
F

I

I-F

F1

Ft

t

I

F)
F’

U

C)

F

I

$)
I
C)

F)

C
C

F

it
hi

HU
LU

X

hi

U
C)

)

(Ii

)

II’)

)

C)

N)
ix)

•

—

U)

—

—

N)

—

CD

—

Hi

Hi
C)

C0

•

C)

H-

HU
LU

U’

U
hi

it

iF))

CD
C)
HC)

Ci)

U)
C)
hi
CD
hi
H(C

U’

U

Di

U’

Di

5

H’,

0
U

(1)

U

U)

U’

(C
C)
Di

ib
0

C)

‘—

U’

——

U’

C)
Hi

Hi

U)

•

C)

•

hi
0

CD
C)
Ft
CD
CD

U)

LU

HU)

LU
Hi
Di
HU
Ft
Hh-h
h-h

CD

CD
C)
Di
U
U)

U’

C)

Di

CD

U)
Ft
Di

Di
H-

CD
H’
HCD
h-h

hi
CD
H’
HCD
H’,

C)
U’

U

U)

S

h-h
hi
0

CD

U

C)

5
5

H-

HU)

U’
0

U
Ft

Di

U’
CD
H’,
CD
U
(1

F)i

Di

U)

‘

U)
CD
CD

0
hi

-,

U’

LU
hi
Di
U
Ft
CD

U’
CD

U’

5

hi
CD
Hi
HCD
h-h

C)
C)’

H-

U’

U

hi
0

5

0

H’,

LU

U

5

F-

hi

U’

C)

U)

Di
hi

Ft

0
U

5

CX)

N)

CD

CD

U)

Li-

U’

U)
U

HU)

Di
C)
Ft
H0
Cl

U)

Ft
U’
H-

‘

CD
hi

it

Hi

U’

Di
Ft

F
C))
C
F

5

F

F-

U’

C)’

C)

U

U)

C)

F

>

C)

H-

C))

I

±

Ft
0

U)

h-h
Di
HH’

U)

U

Di
Hi
HC)
H0

5

HU)

0
Hi
0
U
U)

<

h-h
hi
H-

HU)

Ft
U’
Di
Ft

5

C)
Hi
Di
H-

Di
U
U’

HU)
U)

Cl
HU)

U)

CD

U)

hi

CD
U
Ft
Di

5

CD
hi
U

<

LU
0

Di

U
U)
Ft

H-

Di

LU

Di

CD
U)
U)

Hi

HU)
Ft

U’

Ft
U)

C)

U’
Hhi
CD

LU
Li
U’
H

ct
U’
CD

F-’
U’

H’

U’

hi
CD

U)

CD
Hh-h
HC)
Di

CD

LU

c-iCD

U

0

“F))

CD

CD
0

0

Ft

C)
0
U
hi
Ft
U)

HC)
Ft

CD
U
Ft
HFt
U’

0
hi

Hi
0
U’
CD
CD

LU

5

CD

hi

U
U)
Ft

5

U)

hi
Ft

U

C)
0

0.
HU)
Ft
hi
HC)
Ft

-

U’

CD

5
H’

LU

C)
0

)

0
hi

HCD

hi

CD

U’

Di
C)

U’

CCi

5

0
hi

hj’,

U

HH’

‘

(Cc
H-

CD

Ft
U’
0
U)

U

H-

U

Ft
U)

H-

Di

H

HU
LU

U’

CD

CD

<1

CD
H-

hi

hi
0
C)

LU

HU)

LU
hi
HU)
0
U
CD
hi

Di

U’
HC)
U’

U

H-

U)

U

0

Ft

C)

Di

h-i

Ft
U’
CD

CD
hi

LU

U

Di
Ft
H0

iF))

Ft
H-

H-

Li

C)
U’

‘U)

U’
F))
U)

U’

U

U’

U)
-)

U

5

F-’

LU

C)
0

Hi

4*

it

‘—

Hi
C)
C)
Cm

N)
Cm

hi
HH’

LU

U’

-

-J
—C

Hi

C)
N)

Hi

F -‘
)

I

Hi
Cc

•

0

U’

•

Li

•

)
U’

U))

C)
it

5
U’

U’

U’
[1

U)
U)

h-i

CU

U)

C)
Ft

C)
LU
C)
U’
‘I
UI

U)
C)

H
-

•

CC)

•

U’

-

U’

0

CD
h-h
0
hi

-

U’

CD

CD
U)
Ft

U

hi
CD
,C)

CD

U’

it

CD
hi
U)
CD
CD

)

0

hi

CD

S

Di
U)
Ft

Di
Hi

H-

U)
LU
CD
(F)

Di

CD

U’
Di

0

it

U
U’

U

C)
C)
rt
H0
C)
U)

Ft

Cm

(Y

Hi
Ci
N)
Hi

•

it

U)
Ft
Di

*1

Hi
C)
U))
hi
HU)
0
U

H’

F-’
C)

CX)

Hi

C)

Di

F’Li-

LU

H-

C)

U’

it

h-h
Di
C)
HFH-

hi

CD

Di
C)
0
Ft
U’

cC
0

CD
hi
Ii
CD
U’

H’,

(t
hi
Di
C)
U)

CD

U’

Ft
0

U)

‘

Di
U)

0

U)

Di
Hi

CD

Cr

5

Di
F

C)

F—’-

U)

U’

LU
C)’

U’
HU)

b-h
0
hi

CD
U
U)
Di
Ft
H0
U

LU

C)
0

0
Cl
CD
ii
Di
hi
U’

5

U)

CD
CD

U)

LX’,
h-h’,

CD
U)
•

Hi
Di
HU
Ft
H

H-

U
hi

Li-

U.S.C.
159,

§ 1915(e) (2) (B));

162

(3d Cir,

2008)

Courteau v.

(28 U.S.C.

United States,

§ 1915A(b)).

the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v.
that offers

‘labels or conclusions’

or

287 P. App’x

According to

Iqbal,

“a pleading

‘a formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action will n.ot do.’”
662,

678

U.S.

544,

(2009)
555

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.

(2007)).

Rather,

v.

556 U.S.

Twombly,

550

to prevent surrnary dismissal,

the complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to show
that the claim is facially plausible.
578 P.3d 203,

210

(3d Cir.

2009)

Bowler v.

(citation omitted).

while pro se pleadings are liberally construed,
Gen.,

655 F.3d 333,

339

UPMS Shadyside,

(3d Cir.

2011),

Moreover,

Higgs v.

Atty.

“pro se litigants still

must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a
claim.”
Cir.

Mala v.

2013)

Crown Bay Marina,

(citation omitted)

.

Inc.,

704 F.3d 239,

Nonetheless,

245

(3d

courts must be

cognizant that the Iqbal standard “is not akin to a probability
requirement.”
Officials,

U.S.

Covington v.

710 F.3d 114,

at 678)

118

Int’l Ass’n of Approved Basketball

(3d Cir.

2013)

(quoting Iqbal,

556

(Internal quotation marks omitted)
III.

SECTION 1983 ACTIONS

Plain.tiff brings this action pursu.ant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 provides in relevant part:

7

§ 1983.

w

-

F

F

C)

C)

C)
CD
F)
CD
0

(Ci
C)

H-

C)
H
H-

C)
)

F
C)
HHF
C)

F)

H(

F’
F’C)
CD
C))
FCD

C)

C)

Ci
C)
(-t

C)

C)
CD
C)
C)

C)
Cl
H-

F)

C)

CD

CD
H-

Ci)

F
F

F
H
(Ci

Cl
Ci)

(I

C

C)
C
Cl

I

C)

C)

I
)

I

H-

C)
H
Ft
)

l

t
H
Ci

—,

C)
C)
F
)
F
C)

*

I

,

F

F)

F.

e)

0

F)

C)

CD
Ft

-

Ci

Cl
F
F-

3

H
C

t

t

C)

F
CD
H

I

F
C)

1

Cl
H-

0
Fh

<
H0
F—
CD
Ft
H0
C)

F-h

CD
CD
CD
CD
F)
Ft

H-

HCD

CD
HCl
CD
Ft

CC)

C)
HF)

a

(-

—

Hi

Cl
(iF

(5)
C)

•

CJ)

03

H-

X)0)

F-’C)
CD

C)

(P

a

N)

D3

C)

F)

CD

C)

CD

C)
C)

a

CD
CD

C)

C)
CD

0
F)

a

HFt
Ft
CD

C)

C)
0

13
CD
CD

Cv

Cl

Ft

Ci)

C)

H-

C)

a

C)

CD

HC)
CD

CC)

•

NJ
C)
F—’
F—’

C
CX)

-

CCC

CD
C)
Ft
HC)

a

a

a

a
Ft
Cl
CD

CD
Ft

Ft

Cl

C)

CD
CD
C)
0

-,

CD
C))

CI)
Ft
CD
Ft
CD
CD

CC
C)
F-’Ft
CD

CD

cT

0
F-h

CD

F-

C)

0
C)

H-

C)

CD
CD
C-F

cF

C)

H-

(3)

0
F)

C)
0
Dl
CD
Ft
HFt
C)
çt
H0
Cl

CD
Ft
H0

N)

Cl
H-

CC)

C)
Ft
CD

CD

C)

U
CD
F-h
CD

U
Hf
CI)
C)
CC
CI)
CI)
f-H
C)
Cl

•

<I

—

CD

CC)

H-’
CD
13

CD
Ft
CD
Ft
CD

C)

CD
C)
F)
H-

a
a

CD

F—
Ft
H-

C)
CD
H-

f—I

C)

CC))
CD
0

•

C)

F-h

0

C)
0
t—-’
0
F)

CD

CC)

a

CD

a
Ft

C)

CD
H

C)

U
0
F)
C-)
CD

CD

CD
HF--’
CD
F-)
CD

—•

CC)

CD
F—’
i—CD

X)

F)
HC)

F—

C)
CD
CD
CD
H

CD
F)

a

C)
C)

C)

CD
CD
CD
CD

C)
<

h

CD

C)

Ft

C)

H-

CD

C)
F—

CD

CD

CD

Ft
H
F-h

Ft
HFt
C)
Ft
H0
Dl
CD

F)
CD
Ft

H

F-h
0
F)
C)
CD

CD

<

H-

CD

CD
Cs<
C)
CD
CD

Ft
HF-h
F-h

C)

5
-F
C)
F-)
C)
CD

CD

C)

CD
C’C
C)
CD
CD
CD
H-

If)

F—
CD
H

CX)

C)
CD
CD
C).

CX)
—

C)

CD

-—

F—i
F.C)

z

CD
C)

C)
0
C)

F-h

F-h

CD

HH-

HCD
H-

CD
F)
CD
0
Cl

C)

C)

H-

C)

0

HC)HCD
Cl

C)

C)

C

C)

C)
0
H-

I
(Ci
C

C

HHHC)

C)
F--

Hrt
C)
0
C)
Ct

3

(C

3

,

l
1)
C)

J

I

CD

C)

>C

C
C

F

t

C)

F-

F

j

Ci
F)

‘

•

Ci)

J

Ft
Cl
CD

C
-<

a

CD

CD
CD
C)
C)
F)

Ft

a

CC)

F)
H-

CD

0
H)

<I

H0
H
CD
C)
H0
C)

CD

a

Ct

‘

HF)
CD
Ft

F—h

—

CD

CC)

CD
FF—
CD

Cl
CD
Ft

C)

C)
F-’
CD
HC)
Ft
H
F-h

CD

—

ui

t—
ççs
Co

Vi)

CD
F)

a

C)

C)

F)
CD
HF-’
CD
F-h

F--h
0
F)

C)

C)
F-’
CD
H-

CD

CD
Ft
CD
HCD

Ft
0

-

H
Cl
C)
CD

CDF)F)F-t(.CQ13

a

-,

CD
F)

a

F-h

CD0

a-<a

a

a

-

aH
CD

CDCD

a

C) H- HCl a
C) C)
C) CD (t • F-’ 0
COFt
F-’-ClCl
CD
F-’- F— F
F-’- CD CD Ft
F-hQ CD CD C)
C- H-C)
C) C) 13 CL) Ft CI Cl 0 Cl
F)
CD CD H-ClLJC)l
CD
CD (I H-CD
CD
F)Ft
ClFtC)
F)
CD
CD
CDctC)
a -‘
0 H- a CD Cl C)
I) CD CD F)
CD 0
CD13F-CDLX)
H-F-—-’
CD’
F-’ F-” F) (-1 C) 0 0
CD
C) CD CD F-) C)) F)
CDa)OH•
C)CDHF-hCDC)
0
•
I-”
Cl
CD CD 0 F-h
•
FtF’H-Ft
Cl F)
H-fl 00 CD
CD
F) CD C) Cl
•
H-CD HC)ClCDFt
CDCDC)
F--’CDCPO
CD
CDCD
CDrIH-CQCD
CD
CO
COCDFt
C)FtCDClCD
-CD
F-’-OC)CDF)Cl
Ft
Ft
ClC)
CD0C)
F) Ft
‘-C) H F) F) C)
ClCDH-CDCD
CD
CD Cl C) F) C) CD
0
CDCDLYCI
F) C) CC) H- 0 LJl<
CD C) H- Cl CD
OF)
(I
C)CI)
it çt (F C)
(I- Ft
H- CD

a

o

a

H- C) CD
C) 0 C)
C)
Cl CD
F) Ft F)
CD H- H-

Cl-

13 CD 0 0 Lii
H- Cl F) F) C)
C)
CD
C)
Cl
H-F-’-F)
CD
I-’- C) CD C)) C)
F)
C) H- F) CD
I CC)
C) F) C) ‘C)
C3 C3 cF H- F-’- C) CD
F) F--’- (I) (I Y N Ft CD F)
C) H- CD CD CD 0 ‘
CD
C)
0’
C)F)
0
CJ
CD CD Cl
C) F) C)
(DCI
C)C)O
CD
‘Cl
F)
O

3
claims); Aruanno v. Caidwell, Civil No. 09—5652 (WJM), 2011 PIt
2293385, *7 n.5 (D.N.J. Jun. 8, 2011)

(same).

The standards for analyzing Fourteenth Amendment due
process claims were established by the Supreme Court in Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). In Bell, the Supreme Court stated:
In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or
restrictions of pretrial detention that implicate only the
protection against deprivation of liberty without due
process of law, we think that the proper inquiry is whether
those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee. For
under the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be
punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance
with due process of law....
A court must decide whether the disability is imposed for
the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident
of some other legitimate governmental purpose. Absent a
showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of
detention facility officials, that determination generally
will turn on wwhether an alternative purpose to which [the
restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for
it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the
alternative purpose assigned [to it].” Thus, if a
particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention
is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental
objective, it does not, without more, amount to
punishment.” Conversely, if a restriction or condition is
not reasonably related to a legitimate goal-if it is
arbitrary or purposeless-a court permissibly may infer that
In
3 a recent non-precedential decision, the Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit observed that Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause applies to excessive force claims by pretrial
detainees, but where the claim stems from a prison disturbance,
the Eighth Amendment standard is generally applied because
prison guards cannot be expected to draw distinctions between
sentenced and un-sentenced inmates while they are trying to stop
a prison disturbance.
Carson v. Mulvihill, 488 F. App’x 554,
562 (3d Cir. 2012). As the facts in this case do not indicate a
prison disturbance, the Fourteenth Amendment standard will be
applied.
9

-‘

)

•

I’

‘.

I
•
a

z,

)

Li

P

it

tO

01
‘a
01
I’
LI

CD

0
P1

I-t

•

•

Co

Ct

I

P1
DI

iL)

D

Ci

I-’

C
•

1)

DI
‘C

Li
o
rI

D
U

Li

LI’
CD
‘C

it

II

o
tt

ii

cc
:s
p
cc

Ci

CD

it

-I

p

I’

4.
a.

6

cc

CD

p
to
a
C

IT

)

cc
it
IT

I-

1

1
1

•

i
D

t

A

.t

j.

•

1
t

cct

I

I

‘,

0

to
t
I’

‘
I

t

P

1

•

I

t

Li

a

fr

t

‘

is

b

•

•

I
t

P

%

•

Cc

‘

t*1
L
,D

t
I

I

t
t

-,

1I

3

t

‘

I
Q

t

L

1

3

CL

I)

I

D
•

P1
1.’
I

D
X

‘-

)

D

,

P1

0

t

•

I
P

P

F’LI
Ct

01

P1

it

tO

CD

P1

Ct
)

a

Cc
CD

0

0
‘0

0

DI
to

it

LI

CD

‘

tO

a—

‘0
C
,3

Hi

0

Li

o

F’-

it

C)

I-ti
I-’
F’-

ri

i’-

Ct
0
LI

,

cc

LI’

a
01

Ct
0

0
C
LI
Ct
CD

a

C
CO
CD

CD

C)

P1

0

Ha

LI’
CD

Ct

Ct

01

Ct

Ct
CD

01

0
LI
to
Ct
P1

a

Ct

C
cc

5

LI
it

Hi
0
P1
C)
CD

P1

4
CD

F’-

CD
to
to

CD
X
C)

Ha
0
P1

5

F’-

01

C)
F-’

DI

0
4
CD

P1

0
‘0

Ct

Ct
F’Ha
Ha

LI

F’-

‘u
I-’
01

0
P1

t-

P1

a
CD

o

F’LI

A
LI’
C
cc

Is)
•

ai

I

F&

ai

Cii

M
0

•

LI

‘a

w

U’

DI
Ct

H

a
•

•

tO

i-i
01
Ct
F’o
LI

F’-

a
CD

cc

LI

o

C)

to
CD
C)
C
P1
F’Ct
‘C

tO

CD

LI

LI
C
F’-

CD

‘a

0

Ct

tO

LI
to
CD

0

CD
CO
‘0

P1

a

Ct
CD

DI

CD
P1

0)
‘a
‘a

X

CD

0
F-’
‘C

‘a
P1
0

a

01
I-I

P1

Z

0

•

M
0

•

LI

0

1.4

01
Ct
Cii

•

a

H

•

CD
to

4

CD
C)
Ct
F’-

‘-1-

0
0’

DI
F-’

Ct

LI

CD

5

LI

P1

CD

4

‘a
0

CD

4

Ct
F’-

LI
0
LI
‘0
C
LI
F’-

CD

Ct

5

F’-

‘a
F’Ct

I—’

Ct

LI
0

CD

DI
P1

4
CD
P1

LI’
0
*
CD

‘

Ct
CD
P1
P1
CD
LI
C)
CD

a
a
CD

LI

01

LI

0

Ct
F’-

F’0’
C

P1

it

Lt

CD

0i
Cs
0
•

01

rI

a
•

I—i

•

I—’

01

F’-

rt
ii

‘a

DI
*
01
F’Ct
F’LI

*
LI’
F’F-’
CD

a

CD
DI
to
CD

I-’

CD

P1

LI

CD

0’
CD

CD

LI’

a

LI’
01

a

CD

0

F’CD
LI

CD
P1

CD
X
‘0

CD

LI’
01
4

LI
0
Ct

a

F-’

E
0
C

Ct
DI
F’LI
CD
CD

a
CD

Ct
LI’
CD

cc
Ct

Ct
LI’

tO

0
LI

0
Ct
F’-

P1
F’-

Ct

to

CD

P1

CD

01
P1

a

01
LI

LI
‘a

Ct
F’-

0
P1

Hi

5

0

to
C)

a
F’-

cc
P1
CD

Ct
LI’
CD
‘C

F’Ha

CD
4
CD
LI

‘

LI
Ct

I

‘

LI
F’cc

C

‘0

F-’

DI

LI

0

Ct
C
Ct
F’-

F’-

Ct

to

C
LI
C)
0
LI

rI
C
rI
CD

Ct
F’-

tO

C)
0
LI

CD

P1

o

5

Ct

E
F’rt
rr
0
t

LI
0

0

a

C
P1
F’Ct
‘C

CD
C)

tO

F’e-’

‘-J01

‘a

LI

LI
F’-

F’-

01

Ct

F’LI

F’LI

it

P1
CD
0

LI
Ct
CD

--

to

•

LI

o

F’LI
to
Ct
i-Ct
C
Ct
F’S

Ct
LI’
CD

o

Ct

a

F-’
DI
Ct
CD

CD

P1

to
0
LI
01
0’
I-’
‘C

01

P1

CD

CD

01
P1

Ct
LI’
01
it

CO

it

LI

F’-

rI
P1
0)

CD

i

•

‘C

it

Hi

P1
C)
F’i’
F’-

1
0
Li

CD
LI

it

a
CD

Ct
Li’
CD

01

it

P1

a
CD

P1

0

a

‘C
DI
Li

Ct

I’-

P1

to
CD
C)
C

P1
I’LI

it

I
Li

01

9

0

a
It

CD
CD

to

it

t-’-

13

C)

1

-b

LI’
DI
CO
it
CD
13

it

it

I-’LI
Ct
CD
P1
CD
to
it
to

CD

it

4
b

CD
‘a
F’rI
I’-

1-’

tO

LI’
01

it

Li

3

p

CD
P1

4

‘a
0

LI’
CD

it

il

LI’
oi

0

a

e’LI
CD

Id
DI

CD
)
‘0

F’-

1’-

P1

CD

P1
Ct
LI’

C

Ha

P1
it

C)
0
C

A
LI’
CD

•

‘-

a

it
CD

it

0
ii

0
LI
to

F’-

i-I

01

it

-

w
‘.9

I

Cii

01
Ca)

Ct

01

•

w

•

Cl

Cs
.Cs.
F’

Id

tn
CD
I-.,

0

F’-it

LI

Ct

0101

CLI’

,Qrt

CDLI
rIF’
00
I-’LI’
CDED
CDLI
OCt

00)
LI
‘0

‘OF’

C

ao

CtCt

CDF’

LIDI
i-hi’
F-’
F’-DI

CDCD
LI

F—’CD
‘CP1
LI

mo
)-44

ta-CD

Cii

F’-l-b
ft

.0
‘rio

•OtO
•LICD

CD
‘0
000

LIOC
CDCtP1

asit
CDWLI’
ii’Cm
01

F.3d 318, 326 (3d Cir. 2009); Bethune v. Cnty. of Cape May,
Civil No. 08—5738, 2011 WL 2037627, *3 (D.N.J. May 20, 2011).
Construing all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, as the
Court must do at this preliminary screening stage, this Court
preliminarily finds that Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief necessary to withstand
summary dismissal at this time.

In particular, the facts, as

alleged by Plaintiff in his Complaint, are sufficient to
question the use of force exercised by Defendant Higgins and the
manner and purpose for which the force was applied.

Plaintiff

alleges that Higgins punched him in the face repeatedly while
Plaintiff was on the phone.

He does not allege any incidents or

unit disturbances that warranted Higgins’ unprovoked assault.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Kimball allowed the
assault to occur and did nothing to protect Plaintiff from harm.
Therefore, the Court will allow Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment
excessive force claim to proceed at this time against Defendants
Higgins and Kimball.
However, Plaintiff alleges no facts to support a claim of
excessive force, failure to protect, or any other constitutional
violation by Defendants Brown and Nacca.

In fact, Plaintiff

alleges that Brown interceded and placed herself between Higgins
and Plaintiff to stop the alleged assault.
11

As to Nacca,

Plaintiff makes a general allegation that Nacca and Higgins
“intentionally started assaulting

the phone,”

(Dkt.

[Plaintiff),

when

[he)

was on

but in Plaintiff’s recitation of

# 1 at ¶ 4c),

Plaintiff makes no

the assault in his Statement of Claims,

Therefore,

mention of Nacca’s involvement.

the Complaint will

in its entirety,

be dismissed without prejudice,

as against

Defendants Brown and Nacca.
B.

Denial of Medical Care Claim
Next,

it appears that Plaintiff may be alleging a denial of

medical care claim because it took two days for Plaintiff to be
taken to the hospital for treatment of his broken jaw.

This

Court will rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment in analyzing
Plaintiff’s denial of medical care claim.
Massachusetts General Hospital,

463 U.S.

See City of Revere v.
239,

243—45

(1983)

(holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment,

rather than the Eighth Amendment,

controls the issue

of whether prison officials must provide medical care to those
confined in jail awaiting trial);
150,

158

Appx 92,

(3d Cir
96

2005);

(3d Cir.

King v.

2008)

.

Hubbard v.
Cnty.

Taylor,

399 F.3d

of Gloucester,

In Hubbard,

302 F.

the Third Circuit

clarified that the Eighth Amendment standard acts only as a
floor for due process inquiries into medical and non—medical
conditions of pretrial detainees.
12

399 F,3d at 165—67,

The Fourteenth Amendment standard of unconstitutional
punishment, like the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual
punishments standard, contains both an objective component and a
subjective component:
Unconstitutional punishment typically includes both
objective and subjective components. As the Supreme Court
explained in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct.
2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 ... (1991), the objective component
requires an inquiry into whether the deprivation [was]
sufficiently serious” and the subjective component asks
whether “the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable
state of mind[.]” Id. at 298.... The Supreme Court did not
abandon this bipartite analysis in Bell, but rather allowed
for an inference of mens rea where the restriction is
arbitrary or purposeless, or where the restriction is
excessive, even if it would accomplish a legitimate
governmental objective.
Stevenson v. Carroll, 495 F.3d 62, 68 (3d Cir. 2007).
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied medical
attention for treatment of his jaw, which had been broken in
three places.

He alleges that Defendant Kimball denied

Plaintiff medical care for two days without any medical or
legitimate justification before being sent to the Union Memorial
Hospital on May 14, 2013.

Consequently, it would appear that

Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient at this time to raise a
“plausible claim for relief.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

The

medical claim will be allowed to proceed at this time as against
Defendant Kimball.

13

C.

Supervisor Liability
Plaintiff also generally alleges in his addendum to the

Complaint that supervisory officials Adams and Main ignore these
incidents of assaults and conduct no investigations.

Plaintiff

does not specify any facts in support of this broad allegation.
As a general rule,

government officials may not be held

liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates
under a theory of respondeat superior.
676; Monell v.
658,

691

New York City Dept.

(1978)

See Iqbal,

556 U.S.

Of Social Servs.,

at

436 U.S.

(finding no vicarious liability for a municipal

“person” under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983)

.

In Iqbal,

the Supreme Court

held that “[b]ecause vicarious or supervisor liability is
inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits,
4
that each Government-official defendant,

a plaintiff must plead
through the official’s

own individual actions,

has violated the Constitution.”

556 U.S.

each government official is liable only

at 676.

Thus,

for his or her own conduct.

Iqbal,

The Supreme Court rejected the

contention that supervisor liability can be imposed where the
official had only “knowledge” or “acquiesced” in their
subordinates conduct.

See id.,

556 U.S.

at 677.

Bivens
4 v, Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
14

L

H)
H
CD

cC
hi

H

Co

H

Di

a

a

Di
TI

TI

(C
C’)

CD
TI
Di
Di
TI
C

C

Di
CP
HCD

D

-C

C

LI

H

1)

11

—

a

H
C)
Di

a

Di

Li)

-C
CD
C)
U)

H

a

Dl
CD

I
H

Di
hi
U)

C/)

()
H-

Di
CD

a

it

CD
H

a

0
it

—

U)

H

Di

a

a

Di
CD

Di
H
CD

Z

It,
H-

Ti)
Di
I

U)

hi

it

Di
CD

a

CD

0

LCD

H

0

C/)
CD

Hi

<P

H-

I

(i

I

::
CD

it
0

Di

U)
HI
CD
CD
it

a

hi

CD

C-h

LCD

CD

o

H

Di
CD
‘-CD

hi

o

CD
U)

o

Di
hi
hi
CD
‘CD
Di
it
H-

CD

o

Di
H
CD

CD
H
CD

it

—

CD

<P

a
o

a

CD

<1

U)
CD
H

o
a

U)

CD

H

a

H
it

it

H

CD

a

CD
CD

CD
0
CD

D

(-Ii

t

P

C)
C
CD

C

—

4

(I

fi

I
D

CD
U)
CD

C-,

-C

Di
Di
Ti

U)
CD
HI

Di
U)

S

01

1
t

a

it

Li)

HCD

HC-t

ct

CD

CD

CD

H
Di

I

I

J

H

Di

C

I

Cf

P

C

C/C

H

Li

(-C

H
CD
C)
CD

)
)
H

H-

a
CD
a

Di

Di
U)

CD
U)

a

CD
hi
CD

CD

H-

CD
CD
CD
CD
U)
U)
Di
H
Hhi
LCD

it
U)

(i)

-

H

CD

H

<Ti

CD

Co

-

0

Li)

Di
it

0
CD

<C
H0
hi
Di
it
H

Di
CD
it
CD
Di
hi

Di
CD

CD
CD
it

H

CD
hi
CD

c-i-

HCD

CD

CD
CD

(i

Di
it
CD
U)

CD

H-

a
o
H
a

U)
CD

0
hi

a

Di
CD

a

CD

a

it

LQ

hi

*

Q
CD
Di
hi

H

CD
U)
it
Hit
CD
it

0

CD

it
CD

Di

<C

H
0
hi

it
0

CD
H
U)

a

0
it

a

H
CD
CD
it
CD

a
Ho

H

hi
Di
H

CD

Di
CD
‘-<C

-

LCD

it
hi

CD

CD
HHi
HCD
Di

LCD

Cl)
H

hi
C’

I—’

Di
it

H
CD

CD

Co

-,

Li)

I-’CD

c-i-

CD

Di

Cj)

Li)

H-

U)
0
H
U)

CD
0
it
HCD

U)
CD
‘Ti
CD
H
<C

Di
it

a

it

o

-

it

Di

H
CD

<Ti

U)
CD

-,

H

CD
CD
CD

()
hi

•

it
U)

a

LCD

H-

H

hi

CD
Di

it
H-

U)
it
Hit

CD

o

CD

a

HU)

hi

o

HI
hi
Di
HCD
it
Hhi
hi

CD

a

it

CD

<C

<(5
H
H-

a
CD

0

it

CD
H
U)

a

0
it

CD
Di
CD
U)
CD

a

hi

CD

UT
0

TP
CD
0
i-C
CD

a

Di
-ci
CD

LCD

hi

a

H
CD
Di
U)
0
CD
Di

a

0
CD

a

C))

0
H

UT

CD

;c
CD

-

H

0

HU)

‘-1

H

CD

U)
CD
<(5

CD

a

it

Di
it

it

H
CD
CD
it
H0
CD

a
H-

<C

CD

Di

Li)

H

U)
0

-C
U)
CD
<(5
CD
H
<1
H

Ni

CD

a

it

Di
it

a

ct

Li)

CD

hi

UT

0

a

U)

LCD

a
a

Di
it
CD

H

Ct

CD
U)

0

H

CD

a

CD

a

CD
Di
CD

H
U)

a

‘H

LCD
hi
CD

0
TI
Di
hi

-

a
it

LCD

H

-C
C—-,

ct

Di

C)

hi

L)

CD
H

hi

H

CD

CD
H

CD

CD

hi

0
I-p

a

hi

0
CD

U)

‘

It,

hi

LI
H-

CD

:ifT
L’

Li)

C)
HH

•-‘

-

CD

hi
Di
ct

o

<C
H-

o

it

a

CD

Di
HC)

C))

H

0

U)
CD
<C-I
CD
H
H

U)

a

L<

HH
CT)
C)
it

a

—

U)

UT

Di

(<i

I--’

C)

C)

hi

I-’
)

1)

-‘

a

•

o

U)

C—P

I—a

H
H-

H-

HU)

<C

CD
H

U)
CD

hi
HU)
a

a

Di

U)

CD

çt
0

-

U)

CD

a

‘-3

H

a

a

CD

LCD

0)

hi

hi

Di

CD

it

Di
it

a

it

H-

Di
TI
it
U)

a

CD
CD

U
CD
hi

0

ci

Di
U)

HH

hi

a

L<

H

0
<C
CD

0

<(5

TC
U)
it

H

Hhi
hi

ft

<TI
hi
Di
HCD

-

U)

5

Di

a

CI’

Di-

CD
H

CD
Di
C))

C-C

it

(D

H-

TIP
Di
H
TI

H(t

C)

I-f,

H

it

o
Di
CD

U)
it

TI

C)
0

hi

H
H-

H
CD

a
CC’

hi

C)

hi

hi

—

hi

N)

I--’

a

<-LI
•
hi

LI,
C—)

<

‘--3

:1’

CD

0

Li)

c-I

CD

C’)
CD

Li)

CD

)

L

I.

)
I
‘i

0

it
t

Ii

I

D

5

it

)

x

DR

to

‘a

1<

Ia

I’

II

)

to

Di

o

D

I-.

Di

Cl)

it
H

a

D

0•

1<

Di

I

I)

I-•
Hi

it

I-

I-,
Di

It

V
C’

I’

to

CD

a

C)

:;

t

1
F
R

I

A

U
5
)

i-a
ii

:3

Di

Ci

P

p
H

U

3

t

1’

p

I

Cl

I.

Si

t

t

ii

to

H

•

H

I

.0
it

o

1

a

I

p

S

S

51

‘3
‘0

t

7

t

15

£

1;

t

1

o

S.

I

Ii

•

I

1

B

t

‘
‘1
tQ

0
I

f.

I)

a

a

F

•
C)

‘

Di

1.4

DI

as
I

‘2
b

to

m

it

9
CD
Z

H
3

0

CD

it

ft

‘0
H
H

to

to
0

H

1<

Di
H

H

ft
fr
B
Di

H-

H
CD
‘0

a

H

o

i-ft

0
H

CD
C)
ft
H0
:3

it

t
H
0

Di
I-’
to

P5

Di
CD

ft

H-

CD

0
H

Hi

Di
t
C
to

it

to

I-’
to
C)

0

it

a

it

Di

I—I

H

CD

1<

Di
0’
H

0
:3

Di
to

CD

H

0
CD

0

it

CD
Di
H

‘0

Di
‘0

a

Ct

•

1<

it

I-’-

to
m
t)
C
H

Di

£.
it
H0

ft

it

to

..3

I•

:i
‘0

I-

‘3

H-

Di

t

t

N
D

N

11
Di
H-

3

1.1.

to

H
it
to
ft

C
I—’

it

0

E

:i

H-

:3
it

Di

4

3

‘S
1-

•

to

a

H
CD
‘0
Di
ft
CD

‘0

to

CD

:3

0

Hto

Di
CD

HH
CD

‘S

:3
ft

H

CD
to

H

CD
H

Di

0
ft

Hft
Di

:3

HDi
ft
H
0

C)

0

to

Di
to

to

Di
H
to
0

H
Di
HZ
ft
HHi
Hi

to

H0

ft

C)

Di

Hi

o

o

a

Hi
H
CD
CD

to

ft
HHi
Hi

D

to
H
Di
H-

H

•

H

o

H

Di
ft

M

*

—
0
Pc’
ft

•

ft

:3

H-

a

CD

C)

Di

H

‘0

0’
CD
CD
D

to

Di
Di

Di
CD

ft
Di
Di
ft

to

B
Hft

a

CD

Di

Ha

D

o

o

:3

ft

HD

to
Di
C
H
ft

Di

Di
CD

ft

Di
Hi
ft
CD
H

H0

ft

H
CD
to
CD

H-’O

to
0
H
Di

D
to

o

ft
H-

o

ft
H
H-

H

CD
to

a

Di
H
H
CD
‘0
CD

ft
Di
CD

Di
C
to

S

CD

to
CD
‘0
H

ft
Di
CD

D

H

•

at

0’

I

‘4

a

Di
ft

H

*

0
Pc’
ft
•

“

a

I-.i

—.

D

o

C)
ft
H-

CD

‘0
H
0
ft

to

0

Di

CD
to

to

‘0
C

Di
H

:3

H
H-

C)
HØ

to

H-

a

Hi
0
H

to

to
ft
Di
ft
C

to

Z

0
H

H
0
3

ft

Di

H-to

Di

Hi

0
H
H

CD

CD
Di
H
H
H

:3

a

CD

C)

Di

‘0
H

:3

0’
CD
CD

Di
Di
to

Di
CD

it

Di

CA)

O’i

r-3

H

ii

Z
0

H

0
H$4
H-

Di
I-’

as

Di’

ftg

H

-

o
o
o

‘—

*

to

CD
.U
C
CD

H

H-

to

p’

‘0

:3

:s
0
H
H-

‘0

I”-

Di
H
CD

Cl

‘I

U)

I

U)
‘U

:“
CD
LXI
4
c

it

it

Di

it

i

CD

13

ft

C,
CD
‘0
Di
H

Di
4
Pc

to
to
H
it
to
Di
Hit
D
ft
0
Hto
Hi
Hit
‘
CD

CD
to

ft

o

:3

ii’

H

C

o

C)

Di
Hto

5

to
Di
C
H
it
•

Di
to

Di
CD

it

o

it

to
to
CD
to

CD

z

E
Hft

Di

it

H-

P’1.

;z’

Di
HH
to

ii

Hi

H
Z
Di
F-’

CD

z

ft

Fl

Di
CD

it

a

Di
11

0
CD
F’
F’

to

Zi’
F’

H3

a

CD

0
0

H

Hto

CD

Di

CD

0’
CD
C)
Di
s.:
to

CD

to

it

H
CD
to
Ha
CD
:3

0
ft
Di
CD
H

Di

it

E
H-

3

o

HDi
ft
H

C)

to
0

Di
to

0
Hi

H

0

a

CD

Hi
H

ft
0

ft

H
H‘0

!3
CD
J
ft

a

I
CD
3

‘

H

I-’H
to
it

,zi

Di
I’
to

a

HCD

:3

CD

a

I
to

:3
CD

it

ft
Di
Di

to

H
CD
‘0
CD

Di

Di
H
to
0

HHi

it

to
F’
Di
i’:3

Di

C)

to

0
0
HDi
ft
F’
0

HI

0

8’
a

CD
CD

U

•

subjected to penological restrictions reasonably related to his
status as an adjudicated SVP.

See Sealer v. Ludeman, Civil No.

09—0732 ADM/SRN, 2010 IlL 145275, *15 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2010)
(finding that restrictions on a civilly committed sex offender’s
right to freedom of association is permissible where such
restrictions are reasonably related to legitimate interests to
ensure security and order in the facility).

The Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has acknowledged that
restrictions on association or interaction between civilly
committed persons are not constitutionally offensive if the
restrictions rest on legitimate security measures or
disciplinary purposes, and are not treatment decisions.
Williams, 689 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2012).

Lane v.

Here, the freedom

of association restrictions appear to be consistent with
Plaintiff’s status as a dangerous sex offender.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s freedom of association claim is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable
claim at this time.

Plaintiff’s freedom of association claim

also fails to allege “sufficient factual matter” to show that
the claim is facially plausible.

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.

Consequently, this general claim, as pled, does not satisfy the
threshold requirement set forth in Iqbal, and alternatively, it

17

will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim
at this time.
5
S.

Defamati, Claim
Finally,

Plaintiff asserts a bare claim of defamation of

rc

eanLLn

is a tort actionable under the laws of most States,
’
0
constitutonal deprivaj
233

(1991);

(3d Cir.

see also Clark v.

1989);

WL 1792398,

Siegert v.

*2

Thomas v.

Gilley,

Dy

but not a

500 U.S.

226,

T.

of Falls,

890 F.2d 611,

christy,

Civil No.

13-2560

(D.N.J. Apr.

claim under New Jersey law,

25,

2013)

.

(NLH),

619
2013

To state a defamation

a defendant must make a false and

defamatory statement of fact about plaintiff that the defendant
knew or should have known was false,
to third parties,

causing damages.

Flea World,

356 F.

Inc.,

and that was communicated
See Artista Records,

Supp.2d 411,

424

(D.N.J.

2005)

Inc.

v.

(citing

This
5 dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing an
amended Complaint to allege facts that conform to the legal
standards set forth in this Opinion,
Plaintiff should note that
n an amenc;ed complain iS filed, ic suoersedes the original
whe
and renders it of no lecal effect, un.l ess the •amended co.mp.la:r
11,
specific
refar to or adopts the earlier pleading,
See West
Run Studet t Housjp Assac

tes, LLC s’. Sin tin gtoi, Na tional Rank,
No, 12li430, 201. WI. J.3389 it (3d C, Ron, 4, 2013)
,
86
(collatir cases
S
S
es .Alan Wright & Arthur A,
Niller, Federal Practl. and
§ 1475 (3d ad, 2008)
An
amended complaint may adopt some or all of the allegations in
the originai complaint
but the identification of the Particular
s to
allegation
adopted must be clear and explicit,
IN.
To
avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an amended
conp1ain that is complete in itself
3d.
18

a

Z
P1
C)

C)

•

C

i

F)

CD

11
in

I

1

1

D

I
(I

I

t

0

rI

I.

ft

tT
I’in

Pt

ii
CD
CD
0
C
II

LI

t
a

I
1

‘

K

in

•3

I

•

p

•t

I

P1

I-

t

S

)

I

)
1’
P1

1-’I

U

P1

C)
D

3

P1
ci
CD

0

4.

in
ft

I)
I’$
ci
1
Li
C)

$

0
0

I
U

H

lb
P1
H
I”

in

.4

I

It
C)

Pt
‘Is

H

in

“

4

I•

1191

‘

C

‘4

t

C

D

I

I)

I

I.
C)
1-

B
Li
0

3

V

L

Li

tt

I

‘3
01

P1
I
fl

P1

“

3

C

1

I

t

1
U

C)

C.

‘1

t

1

D

I

I

a

1

4
D

t

I

I
11
Id

D

C

U

‘.

Hi

it

I
P1
I
Li
I
I-

3

,5

1

P1
a
0
t

•

P1

74

t

,

01

in

i
a

1

t
U

h
E
I
C

3

it

P1
‘.Q
P1
HLi
in

P1
in

D

[-

ft

Li’
Hin

ft

ci

P1

H
0
C)
CD
CD
a

‘a

3

ft

a

E
CD

C)

P1
H
I-’

CD

a

E
HH
H

H
HiC)
Li’
ci
in

Li
ft

ft
CD

CD
Li

0
C
H
ft
CD
CD
Li
ft
Li’

Ij

in

H-

Li

0
Hi

<
H0
H
P1
ft
H0
Li

Li

H-

CD

Hi
0
H
C)

4
CD

H-

ft
DC
C)
CD
in
in

0
Hi

C
in
CD

HLi
‘0

‘.0

P1
H
H

El

C)
H
P1
H-

in

‘a
H
P1
H:3
ft
HHi
Hi

“

CD

P1
a’
0
4

Li

ft

Hi
0
H

ft

in

H

CD
P1
in
0
Li

ft
Li’
CD

ii

rj

•

a

CD
‘a
H
H4
P1
ci
H0
Li

0
0
Li
in
ft
Hft
C
ft
H0
Li
P1
H

P1

0
Hi

C)
H
P1

N

C)
0
‘.0
Li
H-

P1

P1
t
CD

ft

in

0

ci

Hi
P1
Hi-’
C
H
CD

ii
0
H

‘

in
CD
a

in

a
H

Hin

-

C)
H
P1

ft
Li
CD

H
CD
Hi
0
H
CD

CD

•

C
H
CD

ft

P1

HLi

H

P1

0
Li

H-

C
ci

ft

H-

ft

0
Li
in

C)

ft

Li
0

P1
H
CD

C)
H
P1

ft
0
H
ft

Z
0
H
CD
0
4
CD
H

•

ci
H0
Li

a
CD
Hi

0
Hi

H
P1

C)

H
ft

0

ci

P1

P1
C
H
Hin

ft

CD
in

ft
0

ft

P1
C)

Hi

0
Hi

P1
H
H
CD
‘.0
P1
ci
H0
Li
in

Li
0

in

CD

P1
Is’

El

‘U
H
P1
HLi
ft
HHi
Hi

ft

HLi

H
P1

,

n

0

Li’
Hin

Li

I-f

HHi
Hi

‘-1

•

‘-

0
0
0

l’s)

•

tz
H4

•

DI’

—.

I-’
0
Oi
Ui

a

l)

•

DII

.-.‘

0

Cd
0
Cd

•

‘a
CD
H

C

Ci)

•

4
C

•

Z

H

Cd

w

01
b
I-’.
0

Ca

0

•

#4

b

I-’-

b’
F-,

q

Di

Li

i,Q

Li

0
ft
H-

C

iQ

‘.

ft

CJ’

‘a

H
P1
I-’Li

l’s)

H

w

ft

0
I’a

4

P1

0

t

Li’
CD
H
in

it

0

CD

in

C)
P1
C

0

Ct

H

0

‘4

C
fl
H-

C)
0

1
CD

ft

0
Hi

in

CD

CD
CD
‘4

ft
:3’

HLi

F0

ft

P1

rr

r

H
CD
‘a

U

-

lb
Hi

ft
I-

‘a
I-’
P1
H13

‘--‘

CD

rt

0

‘-‘

13

l’s

Li’
P1

C)

it

CD
Li
a
CD
a

ft

ft

P1

:z-

ft

ft
Hlb
Hi

P1
F’:3

ii

‘a

ci

‘

P1
C
0

Z

‘a

DI’

—

W
(ii

I

a

C
C)

C)

w

CA)

•

H

m

C,)
C
‘a

•

4
t

•

CD
El
CD
Li
ft

rt

in
o
P1

CD

in

Hi
P1
H

P1

H
in
0
Li

CD

‘a

a

H

Li’
H-

ft

P1

0

(1

in
fl
0
i

rt

II
in

C

IHi
Hi

ft

‘a
I-’
P1
HLi

S

0

H

0

Is)

•

4

H-

C)

•

at

CD

ft

H-

P1

C
Li

C)
0

Li
Ct

P1

a

CD
Li

l1

a
CD

ft

ci
Li
P1

Z

U’s

F”

a

•

.

•

4

t,

•

4
C

•

0

Ca

F-.’

01

CD

CI)

Ca

.

—

C)

iD

F-’

4

C)

•

‘a

V

•

ci

0

•

CD
H

‘a

(1)
C

(.4

•

-

‘..O

(ii

Cd

Cii

w

ID
(Si
H

a

Is)

DI’

H
H

—I

CU

Cd
CJ

H

‘a
CD

CD

C

4
C

Z

l’s)

ft

CD

H
F’
Is

4

‘

C)

CD

a

Di
ft
CD

/

I
I
I

et

H-

ft

0
ft

H

Di

C

ft

Di

ft

CD

a
CD

Di
ci

a
CD
ft

H
()
H
H-

ft
H-

0
H

U)

CD

CD

H

a

H

ft
-

0

CD
H
Di
Di
a
H
ftDiCD

0

E)
Di

Di

a

ft
Di

H
H

Di
ft

0
a

C)

C)
ft

ft
H
H-

H-ft
U)

C)X

Di
ftC)
CDtxl
U)C)
C)

CJ)C)
ft•

U)
ft

H

Di

H-

CD

\.

fQ

a

U)

aDil

r

Di

Di

-

HC)
CD

H-

CD0

Di
çt

0

CD

ft

CD
U-

a

U)

Di

H

a

Di

C)
HDi
ft
CD

0

Di
U)
U)

ft
0

0
H

ft

o

0

a

Hft

a

CD

U)

HU)

Q
HU)

ft
Di
H-

o

Di

ft
Di
ft
CD

U)

0

ft

H
CD

o

ft
Di
Hft

ft
0
H

ftHi

CCTh

U)

ft
0
ft
ft
0
)C