HOUSER v. WILLIAMS et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Clerk shall refile the Amended Document 3 as a new complaint in a separate matter; the Clerk shall restore the case caption to the original case caption; Ordered that claims against certain defendants are Dismissed Wit hout Prejudice and these defendants are hereby dismissed from the case; all claims against Defendant State of New Jersey Department of Correction are hereby Dismissed With Prejudice and this defendant is hereby Dismissed; the Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve summons; the remaining Defendants shall file and serve an answer, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A), etc. (n/m) Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 5/25/2018. (sm)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BRANDON HOUSER,

Civil Action No. 16-9072 (CCC)
Plaintiff,
v.

:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SERGEANT WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff is proceeding, in /örmapauperis, with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C.

§

1983. At this time, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1915(e)(2)(B) 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 suit. It appearing:
1. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Clerk inadvertently filed a complaint Plaintiff
intended to file in a separate matter as an “amended document” in the instant matter. (See ECF
No. 3.) It is clear that the second pleading asserts claims arising out of a completely different
incident, and Plaintiff himself recognized this by explicitly stating that he was filing two separate
suits. (See ECF No. 3-1 at I (“TWO SEPARATE SUIT[jS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THIS
COURT, FROM TWO SEPARATE DATES AND INCIDENTS[.]”).)’ As such, the Court directs
the Clerk to refile the “amended document” as a separate complaint in a new matter, and also to

Indeed, both the original Complaint and this “amended document” were filed on the same day,
which makes Plaintiffs statement even more relevant with regard to his own intentions on how to
construe the two separate pleadings.

restore the original case caption of this case. The Court’s screening here, therefore, is done against
the original Complaint. ECF No. 1.
2. The Court dismisses all claims against Defendants Morris County Correctional Facility
Response Team, Morris County Bureau of Corrections, County of Morris, Board of Chosen
freeholders of Morris County Correctional facility, Morris County Correctional Facility, and
Morris County Sheriffs Department from the case. Although counties and their agencies are not
immune from suit, see N. Ins. Co. ofNY. v. Chatham Cly., Ga., 547 U.S. 189, 193-94 (2006), “a
municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor—or, in other words, a
municipality cannot be held liable under

§ 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Caidwell v.

Egg Harbor Police Dep ‘t, 362 F. App’x 250, 251 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Monell v. Dep ‘1 of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Instead, to hold a municipality liable, the plaintiff must identify
an official custom or policy that caused a constitutional deprivation. Id. at 251-52. To state a 1983
claim for municipal liability, a plaintiff must allege the existence of: (1) a policy or lack thereof;
(2) a policy maker that effectuated said policy; and (3) a constitutional violation whose “moving
force” was the policy in question. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.
3. Here, Plaintiff indeed raises policy/custom claims against these defendants. (See, e.g., ECF
No. I at 7.) However, nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff identify a specific policy or custom
that caused the alleged violations. “Simply paraphrasing

§ 1983” is insufficient to “satisfy the

‘rigorous standards of culpability and causation’ required to state a claim for municipal liability.”
Woody. Williams. 568 F. App’x 100, 104 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Melernan v. City of York. 564
F. 3d 636, 658-59 (3d Cir. 2009)). Without more, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to state
a cLaim upon which relief may be granted against these defendants, so all claims against them, and
these defendants themselves, are dismissed.

9

4. The Court also dismisses all claims against Defendant State of New Jersey Department of
Corrections (“NJDOC”). The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides
that, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law
or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State,
or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. As such, the Eleventh
Amendment protects states and their agencies and departments from suit in federal court regardless
of the type of relief sought. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984);
see P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf& Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993) (holding that
the Exparte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity is inapplicable to “the States or
their agencies, which retain their immunity against all suits in federal court”). Section 1983 does
not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 338 (1979).
Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to state officials sued in their official capacity. Kokinda
v. Pa. Dept’ of Corr., No. 16-1584, 2016 WE 5864890, at *2 (3d Cir. Oct. 7, 2016). Courts have
repeatedly held that NJDOC is a state agency entitled to immunity. See. e.g., Chavarriaga v. N.J
Dep ‘t ofCorr., 806 F.3d 210, 224 n.9 (3d Cir. 2015) (“{TJhe Court correctly dismissed the NJDOC
from this case on Eleventh Amendment grounds.”); Bell v. Holmes, No. 13-6955, 2015 WE
851804, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2015); Homan v. N.J Dep’t of Corr., No. 13-1466, 2014 WE
4273304, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2014); Wimbush v. Jenkins, No. 13-4654, 2014 WE 1607354, at
*4 (D.N.J. Apr. 22, 2014): Love v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 13-1050. 2014 WL 46776, at *2 (D.N.J.
Jan. 6, 2014).
5. The balance of the Complaint, which consists of Plaintiffs claims against individual
defendants, is permitted to proceed.

3

IT IS therefore on this

2-.

day of

,

201$,

ORDERED that the Clerk shall REFILE the “Amended Document”, ECF No. 3, as a new
complaint in a separate matter; the Clerk shall RESTORE the case caption to the original case
caption based on the original Complaint; it is further
ORDERED that all claims against Defendants Morris County Correctional facility
Response Team, Morris County Bureau of Corrections, County of Morris, Board of Chosen
freeholders of Morris County Correctional facility, Morris County Correctional facility, and
Morris County Sheriffs Department are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and
these defendants are hereby DISMISSED from the case; it is further
ORDERED that all claims against Defendant State of New Jersey Department of

Corrections are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and this defendant is hereby
DISMISSED from the case; it is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1915(d), the Clerk shall issue summons and the

United States Marshal shall serve summons, the Complaint and this Order upon the remaining
Defendants, with all costs of service advanced by the United States2; it is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§

1997e(g)(2), the remaining Defendants shall file

and serve an answer, see fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular mail.

Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.

2

Alternatively, the U.S. Marshal may notify defendants that an action has been commenced and
request that the defendants waive personal service of a summons in accordance with fed. R. Civ.
P.4(d).
4