WATKINS v. RICCI et al

Filing 2

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 4/8/2014. (jjc)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JESSE WATKINS,

Civil Action No. 13-2169 (FL W)

Plaintiff,

v.

OPINION

MICHELLE RICCI, et al.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
JESSE WATKINS #025457B
New Jersey State Prison
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, NJ 08625
Plaintiff Pro Se

WOLFSON, District Judge:
Jesse Watkins, who is confined at New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP") in New Jersey, seel-;.s
to file a Complaint asserting claims against former NJSP Administrator Michelle

Ric~~i,

Cookhouse Supervisor G. Hanuschik, First Shift Assistant Supervisor J. Howard, and John DQe,
another First Shift Supervisor at NJSP. This Court will grant Plaintiffs application to proceed in
1

forma pauperis.

For the reasons expressed in this Opinion, and as required by 28 U.S.C. :§§

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), this Court will dismiss the Complaint.

I. BACKGROUND
I

Plaintiff asserts the following facts, which this Court is required to regard as true for t;he
purposes of this review. He alleges that while working in the kitchen ofNJSP on April 19, 20:11,
First Shift Supervisor John Doe directed him to move the empty bread racks and stacks ofwhe~ls

out of the production box because the truck had arrived to pick them up.

as

Plaintiff asserts that,

I

he exited the production box with the stacks of wheels, his left foot went into an uncovered
drainage hole, he heard something snap, and he fell backwards, hitting his head and neck on a cart
I

before landing on the floor.

tl:~e

Plaintiff alleges that Corrections Officer Matthews radioed

sergeant and called a code, as Plaintiffs foot was caught in the drainage hole and he was in seve1~e
I

pain. Plaintiff states that two nurses and hospital porters placed Plaintiff on a gurney and todk
him to the clinic, where he was examined by a doctor, given aninjection for pain, and admitted to
the infirmary. Plaintiff asserts that. he remained in the infirmary from April 19, 2011,

throuf~h

April 22, 2011, and he was placed in a special housing unit because of his injuries on June 2),
2011. Plaintiff further asserts that he filed grievances on April 25, 2011, and July 26, 2011,

ar~d

he wrote to Administrator Ricci on August 29, 2011, but he received no responses to qis
gnevances.
Plaintiff asserts that Administrator Ricci, Cookhouse Supervisor G. Hanuschik, First Shift
Assistant Supervisor J. Howard, and First Shift Supervisor John Doe were aware of the

uncoven~d

drainage hole, as they had seen it. He contends that "Defendants had no legitimate penologic;al
interest and/or concerns justifying leaving the drainage hole uncovered, and their failure to dct
~to

displayed deliberate indifference and reckless disregard for plaintiffs safety in response

avoiding a foreseeable risk [and was] objectively unreasonable in light of plaintiffs clemrly
established Eighth Amendment right to reasonable care and safety." (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at
I

12-13.) Plaintiff further contends that "Defendants were well aware of the uncovered draina:ge
hole in the Cookhouse and failed to exercise ordinary skill, care and knowledge to av<~id
foreseeable risk to plaintiff that was within the common knowledge of lay people." (ECF No. 1 at
1

2

13.) For violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and his rights under State law, he see1ts
declaratory relief, an injunction directing Defendants to cover the drainage hole, damages, an:d
other relief that is just.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to
I

~n

1321-77 (April 26, 1996) ("PLRA"), district courts must review complaints in those civil actions

I

which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress again;st
a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim with respect to pris<>n
I

conditions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any clahn
that is frivolous, is malicious, faHs to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetaty
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. /d.

This action is subject to sua spor!,Je

screening for dismissal under these statutes because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he

i~~

a

prisoner, and he seeks redress from a governmental entity.
I

"[A] pleading that offers 'labels or conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a clainr 1,
I

the complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter" to show that the claim is facially plausih~e.

Fowler v. UPMS Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). "A claim has fadal
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

1

"The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.s.c'. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6)." Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App'x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v.
Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220,223 (3d Cir. 2000)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F. App'x 230,232 (3d Cir. 2012)
(discussing 28 U .S.C. § 1997e(c )(1 )).

3

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc

1
. ,

708 F.3d 470, 483 n.17 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Iqbal; 556 U.S. at 678). Moreover, while pro .5/e
pleadings are liberally construed, "prose litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints 1;o
I
I

support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citatiqn
omitted) (emphasis added).

III. DISCUSSION
A.

Federal Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Mansfield, C. & L. M Ry. Co. v. Swan,

111 U.S. 379, 383 (1884). "[T]hey have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the
Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto." Bender v. Williamsport Ar1ra
I

School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). Section 1983 ofTitle 42 ofthe United States Code provide~~ a
cause of action for violation of constitutional rights by a person acting under color of state law.

2

I

To

recover under§ 1983, a plaintiff must show two elements: (1) a person deprived him or caused him to
be deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the deprivatibn
was done under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

2

The statute 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.

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4

Liberally construing Plaintiffs allegations, the Court reads the Complaint as attempting t;o
state a claim under the Eighth Amendment and§ 1983 for failure to adequately protect him frmp
injury due to an uncovered drainage hole, while he worked in the cookhouse of NJSP. Plaintiff
I

asserts that he became severely injured when his foot got caught in an uncovered drainage hole,
that the named Defendants had seen and were aware of this hole, and that they failed to ta1te,
reasonable steps to cover it or otherwise protect him and others from foreseeable injury. The
problem with Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants is that his

allegatim~s

indicate that Defendants were negligent in failing to take reasonable measures, but negligen're
does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. J-:::~4
( 1986) (holding that prison official's negligent failure to protect inmate from assault by anothbr
I

inmate because official "mistakenly believed that the situation was not particularly serious" does
not state a claim under§ 1983); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (holding that inmate1''s
allegations that he was injured when he slipped on a pillow that was negligently left on the stairs 1Dy
a deputy sheriff does not state claim under§ 1983). Because negligence is not sufficient to stat(i a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court will dismiss the federal claims for failureto state a clai:m
I

upon which relief may be granted. 3 See Small v. Visinsky, 386 F.App'x 297, 299 (3d Cir. 201'0)
("Eighth Amendment liability under 42 U .S.C. § 1983 requires more than ordinary lack of due czlre
for the prisoner's interests or safety.") (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986));
Franco-Calzada v. United States, 375 F.App'x 217 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that officials' failure to
I

inspect and rectify faulty ladder attached to his bunk bed, which caused his fall and injury, "(aS

3

This Court will deny Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel as moot.
5

negligence that does not rise to a constitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment or Due Proce~~s
Clause).
B.

Amendment
A District Court generally grants leave to correct the deficiencies in a complaint by

amendment. See DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Properties Inc., 672 F.3d 241, 251 (3d Cir. 2012);'
Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000). However, in this case, where Plaintiffs
allegations clearly show negligent conduct at worst, this Court will not grant leave to amend
because amendment would be futile. 4

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, this Court will grant Plaintiffs application to
proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the Complaint, and deny the motion for appointment t>f
counsel.

J/.!{~

-FR_E_i{A0-1--A.. :. .L. . .:::.
:::;_W__..O_L-=F-SONfllis_O_N-++--=.S=.D=.==J-._ _ _ _ , _

DATED: _

tf!.-.1-/_...:.,~-1-1_ _ , 2014
I

I

4

Nothing in this Opinion prevents Plaintiff from pursuing relief on any claims arising under Sthte
law in State court. In addition, ifPlaintiffbelieves that he can assert facts which would show tlbat
one or more Defendants were more than negligent, then he may apply to reopen this case and to
file an amended complaint.
6