BRAGG et al v. LANIGAN et al
Filing
15
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 10/31/2011. (eaj)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
GARY M. LANIGAN, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
________________________________:
BRIAN KEITH BRAGG,
Civil Action No. 10-2249 (JAP)
O P I N I O N
APPEARANCES:
Brian Keith Bragg, Pro Se
# 648827
Northern State Prison
P.O. Box 2300
Newark, NJ 07114
PISANO, District Judge
Before this Court is Plaintiff, Brian Keith Bragg’s, motion
to reopen this civil rights case (docket entry 13).
On May 5,
2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint (docket entry 1), and on May
27, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (docket entry 3).
On February 25, 2011, this Court entered an Opinion and Order
dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
On March 7,
2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen and amend complaint
(docket entry 13), which remains pending.
Although not labeled as such, construed liberally,
Plaintiff’s motion includes a proposed second amended complaint.
After review of the proposed second amended complaint, this Court
will grant the motion to reopen, and allow Plaintiff’s excessive
force claims to proceed.
All other claims will remain dismissed.
DISCUSSION
A.
Plaintiff’s Excessive Force Claim
The facts asserted by Plaintiff in previous filings will not
be repeated here.
However, this Court points out relevant facts
relayed in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
In screening Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, this Court
found that, although Plaintiff asserted that many inmates were
victims of excessive force at the New Jersey State Prison at the
time he was housed there, Plaintiff had not alleged any facts
indicating that he, himself, had been a victim of excessive
force.
Therefore, this Court dismissed his excessive force
claim, without prejudice.
(Opinion, docket entry 11).
In his
second amended complaint, attached to the motion to reopen,
Plaintiff asserts that he was a victim of excessive force on
March 16, 2010 when he “was viciously attacked by State
Correctional Officer Jason Holder and two John Doe officers who
wihtout provocation (hand-cuffed) beat Plaintiff with their night
sticks, fists and kicked and stomped [Plaintiff] with their
boots, and injured Plaintiff so severely that he needed to be in
2
the prison infirmary for 7 days.”
(Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Complaint, docket entry 13, ¶ 4).
In the February 25, 2011 Opinion, this Court set forth the
law concerning excessive force claims.
For the reasons set forth
in that Opinion, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s excessive
force claims against defendant Holder shall proceed, and
defendant Holder will be ordered to answer the claims.
This
Court will issue an Order directing the Clerk of the Court to add
defendant Holder to the docket, and to serve defendant Holder
with Plaintiff’s pleading.
B.
Plaintiff’s Other Claims
As set forth in the February 25, 2011 Opinion, in screening
a complaint, the Court looks to the guidance set forth by the
United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937
(2009).
In that case, the Supreme Court cited its opinion in
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), for the
proposition that “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.’”
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
The Supreme Court held that,
to prevent a summary dismissal, a civil complaint must now allege
“sufficient factual matter” to show that the claim is facially
plausible.
This then “allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
3
alleged.”
See id. at 1948.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Iqbal
emphasizes that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the allegations
of his complaint are plausible.
See id. at 1949-50; see also
Twombly, 505 U.S. at 555, & n.3; Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578
F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009).
In his proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiff again
seeks to assert the claims of other inmates who were allegedly
attacked at New Jersey State Prison during their confinement in
MCU.
As noted in the February 25, 2011 Opinion, these inmates
have neither signed the complaint(s) nor submitted applications
to proceed in forma pauperis; therefore, they will not be
considered parties to this action.
Plaintiff further asserts in the proposed second amended
complaint, as he did in his first amended complaint, that
defendant Lanigan, the Commissioner of the Department of
Corrections, and defendant Ricci, the Warden of the New Jersey
State Prison, are liable to him because they “did absolutely
nothing to prevent plaintiff or other inmates being beaten on the
MCU.”
15).
(Proposed Second Amended Complaint, docket entry 13, ¶
Plaintiff states that defendants Lanigan and Ricci, “had a
duty to Plaintiff and other inmates to act with reasonable care
in confining Plaintiff and other inmates in a safe environment,”
and that they breached the duty.
(Id. ¶ 21).
4
Again, as with the first amended complaint, Plaintiff fails
to demonstrate more than a legal conclusion or a formulaic
recitation of a cause of action.
Plaintiff’s claims against
defendants Lanigan and Ricci in the proposed second amended
complaint are based solely on a theory of respondeat superior,
see Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988)("A
defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement
in the alleged wrongs, liability cannot be predicated solely on
the operation of respondeat superior.
Personal involvement can
be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual
knowledge and acquiescence.”)(citations omitted), and do not meet
the pleading requirements of Iqbal.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, this Court hereby grants the motion
to reopen.
The excessive force claim against defendant Holder,
named in the proposed second amended complaint, is permitted to
proceed.
All other claims, plaintiffs, and defendants will be
dismissed from this action.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
/s/ JOEL A. PISANO
JOEL A. PISANO
United States District Judge
Dated: October 31, 2011
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?