MITCHELL v. CICCHI et al
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 9/26/2016. (eaj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MICHAEL MiTCHELL,
Civil Action No. 13-5048 (PGS)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
EDMOND C. CICCHI, et al.,
Defendants.
It appearing that:
1. This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants
Joyce Pirre, Edmond C. Cicchi, Mark Cranston and Robert Grover (collectively, “Defendants”).
(ECF Nos. 43, 52.) Defendants are seeking dismissal of Plaintiff Michael Mitchell’s (“Plaintiff’)
Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (ECF No. 42), wherein he raised five separate claims: (1)
violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-i, et seq., Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of
2000 (“RLUIPA”); (2) violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983
by denying Plaintiff his First Amendment
right to free exercise of his religion; (3) conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his civil rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C.
§
1985(3); (4) violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c)
(“NJCRA”); and (5) violation of N.J.S.A. 10:5-I, et seq., the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination (“NJLAI)”).
2. Plaintiff alleges the following facts in his SAC:
2
On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff [a prisoner at Middlesex County Jail
since January 13, 2012] was placed on maximum custody status...
In his Opposition to the Motions, Plaintiff withdraws this count.
2
The Court recites only the facts relevant for purposes of these Motions.
Plaintiff is an adherent to the religion of Islam. Plaintiffs religion
is a sincerely held belief: He was raised as a Muslim. Two of the
most important religious holidays for Muslims are Eid al Fitr and
Eid al Adha. Eid al Fitr is a holiday marked by the breaking of the
Ramadan Fast and by a communal celebration involving a feast.
On information and belief, as a general practice, the Jail has a
communal Eid feast for Muslim inmates. At the Jail, the hid al Fitr
communal feast in 2013 was held on August 10, 2013. with notice
being given to celebrants on August 6, 2013. In 2013, certain
inmates, including Plaintiff, were not allowed to attend this feast.
On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff protested his exclusion from the Eid
festival to Cicchi and Pine. He received a response from Pine
stating that his “MCS status” was the reason why he was not allowed
to attend. Cicchi did not respond. On August 11, 2013, he
protested this exclusion further to Pine and Cicchi on the grounds
that he was being wrongly deprived of his First Amendment right
under the United States Constitution to practice his religion, and that
this was also in violation of the Correction Center Inmate
Guidelines, issued by the Middlesex County Department of
Corrections, which, at page 7, accords all inmates “full and equal
opportunity to practice their religion....,’ and in violation of NJ.AC.
§ 1OA:31-26.3, which likewise provides, inter alia, that “all inmates
shall be afforded full and fair opportunity to practice their religion
To this appeal, Pine wrote a written response saying that she
“didn’t make the rules,” and advised him to write to Grover. Cicchi
did not respond.
Plaintiff then appealed further to Grover on August 23, 2013, again
citing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the
New Jersey Constitution and New Jersey Regulation N.J.A.C.
§1OA:3 1-26.3. Grover never responded to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was
again not allowed to attend the Eid festival on October 19, 2013.
After this inaction, Plaintiff brought his original complaint in this
Court. Plaintiff was not allowed to attend religious services for
Ramadan on Saturday, June 28, 2014. Altogether, Plaintiff was not
allowed to attend Eid festivals during his incarceration at the Jail,
totaling six (6) in number. On information and belief, others in
maximum custody status were allowed to attend the communal Eid
holidays.
The Jail maintains a grievance process. Plaintiff requested a copy
of the grievance process and the forms for filing a grievance from
2
unit officers. Grievance forms were withheld from Plaintiff. On
information and belief. Pirre had a copy or access to a copy of the
inmate guidelines including the grievance process at the time(s) in
question. As a consequence of the above, Plaintiff appealed using
ad hoc letters of his creation, addressed variously to the named
Defendants. Previously and subsequently to the dates of these Eid
festivals, from which he was excluded, Plaintiff had been allowed
to attend Ja’Mah and Taleem, both on a regular weekly basis, and
both in the same location as the Eid festivals from which he was
excluded. On knowledge and belief, members of other religious
faiths were not denied access to communal celebrations of religious
holidays consistent with their faith.
(SAC
¶J
10-36.)
3. Plaintiff is seeking compensation for “emotional distress and anxiety” and to “enjoin[j
I)efendants from continuing the practice of preventing Islamic individuals from attending certain
religious events.” (Id.
¶ 59.)
4. On November 18, 2015, Defendant Joyce Pirre filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC for:
1. Failure to State a Claim;
2. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies;
3. Injunctive Relief is moot;
4. Compensatory Damages for Emotional Distress Absent Physical
Injury are Barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act: and/or,
5. Certain Claims are Barred by the Applicable Statute of
Limitations.
On January 22, 2016, Defendants Edmond C. Cicchi, Mark Cranston and Robert Grover joined in
the Motion.
(ECF No. 52.)
The Court held oral argument on March 7, 2016 and reserved
decision.
5. A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) only if it states
3
“sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim thr relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.”
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.)
While the Court must accept all factual
allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it need
not accept a “legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d
187, 195 (3d Cir. 2007); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009); see
also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint,
they must be supported by factual allegations.”). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, will not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
6.
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs RLUIPA claim against them in their
individual capacities because such a cause of action is not permissible. See Sharp v. Johnson, 669
F.3d 144, 155 (3d Cir. 2012). Plaintiff acknowledges that is correct and therefore the Court will
dismiss the RLIJIPA claim against the Defendants in their individual capacities. With regard to
a RLUTPA claim against Defendants in their official capacities, as acknowledged by Plaintiff
during oral argument, Plaintiff is no longer detained at Middlesex County Jail and is unlikely to
ever be held there again because he is now serving a life sentence in state prison. Therefore,
Plaintiffs RLUIPA claim against Defendants in their official capacity is moot and will be
dismissed as well. See Banks v. Secy Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 601 F. App’x 101, 103 (3d
Cir. 2015) (prisoner no longer presents a live case or controversy for injunctive relief under
RLUIPA after a transfer because an injunction where he is no longer imprisoned would not provide
4
him meaningful relief); Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001) (a claim for
declaratory and injunctive relief based on conditions of confinement is rendered moot upon the
prisoner’s release or transfer from the facility); Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir.
2009) (dismissing as moot plaintiffs RLUIPA claims due to a prison transfer); Gladson v. Iowa
Dep’t of ColT., 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding state prisoner’s claim that prison officials
violated his free exercise and RLUIPA rights was rendered moot when he was transferred to
another facility and was no longer subject to the allegedly offending policy); Koger v. Bryan, 523
F.3d 789, 804 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding request for injunctive relief under RLUIPA is moot due to
prisoner’s release from prison).
7. Defendants next argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim
under the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and New Jersey Civil Rights Act,
however, as evidenced by this Court’s determination that the Amended Complaint met the
screening requirements under 28 U.S.C. §S 1915, 1915A, the Court disagrees. (ECF No. 11.)
As such, Defendant’s motion to dismiss on this ground is denied.
8. With regard to the conspiracy claim under
failed to state a claim.
§ 1985, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
Section 1985(3) permits an action to be brought by one injured by a
conspiracy formed “for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class
of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the
laws.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985(3); Farber v. City of Paterson, 440 F.3d 131. 134 (3d Cir. 2006).
state a claim under
To
§ 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege: “(I) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of
depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the
laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the
5
conspiracy; (4) whereby’ a person is injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or
privilege of a citizen of the United States.”
United B/id. of Carpenters & Joiners v. Scoti, 463
U.S. 825, 828-29 (1983) (citing Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971)).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet the first required element. He alleges no facts which
would suggest a conspiracy and therefore has failed to state a claim. See DR. by L.R. v. Middle
Bucks Area Vocational Tech. Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1377 (3d Cir. 1992) (“mere conclusory
allegations of deprivations of constitutional rights are insufficient to state a
§ 1985(3) claim)
(internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Gary v. Pa. Human Relations Comm ‘h, 497 F.
App’x 223, 227 (3d Cir. 2012) (conclusory statement that defendants conspired, absent any factual
basis, is insufficient to set forth a plausible claim for relief under
9. Defendant next argues that the
§ 1985(3)).
§ 1983 claim free exercise claim must be dismissed
because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Failure to exhaust administrative
remedies is an affirmative defense under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act and “inmates are not
required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.” See Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). Nevertheless, district courts may dismiss a complaint when the failure
to exhaust administrative remedies is apparent from the face of the complaint. See Ray v. Keries,
285 F.3d 287, 293 n.5 (3d Cir. 2002). It is not apparent from the face of the Complaint whether
or not Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies.
Therefore, Defendant’s motion to
dismiss the First Amendment free exercise claim on the basis of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies is denied.
10. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief on his remaining claims under the
First Amendment and NJCRA, that request will be dismissed as moot. A federal court has neither
6
the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of
litigants in the case before them. Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975); Sutton v. Rasheed,
323 F.3d 236, 248 (3d Cir. 2003) (per curiam). An inmat&s transfer or release from the facility
complained of generally moots equitable and declaratory claims. Sutton, 323 F.3d at 248. Such
claims are not mooted when a challenged action is (1) too short in duration to be fully litigated
before its cessation or expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable likelihood that the same complaining
party would be subject to the same action again. Id. (citing Abdul—Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195.
206 (3d Cir.1993)).
Here, as discussed with regard to the RLUIPA claim, Plaintiff has been transferred from
Middlesex County Jail to a state prison. He is serving a life sentence and it is highly unlikely that
he will ever again be subject to the same action by these Defendants. Moreover, the complainedof conduct took place over the course of years, ample time to fully litigate the issue. Therefore,
because none of the exceptions to mootness apply, Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief will be
dismissed.
11. Plaintiff’s request for compensatory damages will also be dismissed. As properly
argued by Defendants, the Third Circuit has explicitly held that pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
3
§ 1997e(e),
a prisoner is not entitled to compensatory damages for a violation of his free exercise rights based
only on mental or emotional injury. See Allah v. Al-Ha/ez, 226 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2000).
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any physical injury and therefore he is not entitled to compensatory
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) states that “[nb Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined
in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in
custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.”
7
4
damages.
12. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs RLUIPA claim, NJLAD claim and request tbr
injunctive and compensatory damages are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs
§
1985 conspiracy
claim is dismissed without prejudice. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amendment and
NJCRA claims for failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies is denied.
An appropriate order follows.
Dated:
Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J.
As also stated by the Third Circuit, nominal damages are still available for prisoners such as
Plaintiff. Allah, 226 F.3d at 251 (‘the Supreme Court recognized...that certain absolute
constitutional rights may be vindicated by an award of nominal damages in the absence of any
showing of injury warranting compensatory damages”).
8
‘
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?