PADILLA v. CICCHIE
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 5/17/2016. (mmh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LESNIN PIEDRA PADILLA,
Civil Action No. 14-3066 (FLW)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v.
EDMOND C. CICCHI,
Defendant.
This matter having been opened to the Court by Plaintiff’s filing of an action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. It appearing that:
1. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his initial Complaint on May 7, 2014 against the
Edmond C. Cicchi, the Warden Middlesex County Adult Correctional Center (“M.C.C.C.”),
alleging that he had been beaten by another inmate on June 25, 2013, and had sustained injuries
to his back and nose. (ECF No. 1, Complaint at 5-6.) Plaintiff also sought to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (Id. at 1-1.)
2. On May 19, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application and, pursuant to its
screening authority, dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (ECF No. 2.) The Court
explained that “assuming that Plaintiff has a constitutionally protected right to reasonable safety
. . . the Complaint as written, does not state a claim for violation of that right because Plaintiff
provides no facts showing that the Warden was personally involved in causing the Plaintiff’s
beating and injuries. (Id. at 4 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009)). The Court
1
further explained that “[a]side from naming the Warden as a Defendant, Plaintiff’s allegations do
not set forth any facts showing that the Warden was aware of the danger to Plaintiff’s safety,
failed to reasonably respond to this knowledge, or was involved in causing Plaintiff’s attack by
another inmate.” (Id.). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint. (Id. at
5; see also ECF No. 3, Order dismissing Complaint without prejudice).
3. Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint attaches a portion of the Middlesex County Department of Corrections Inmate
Guidelines, which outlines the procedures for placing an inmate on Management Control
Housing Status. (ECF No. 4, Complaint at 8-11.) On page 6 of the Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 4), Plaintiff also provides the following additional statement:
As it explain in inmate guidelines on page #14-IV Management Control status. On
paragraph A-B note: Management control housing status will be utilized for those inmates
based on their CHARGES and amount of bail. My bail was or is [$]250[,]000 so I was
placed at Upper D unit were I was assaulted by fellow inmate. So the Warden was aware
that Sgt. Latham was going to placed me in General Population. [B]ut Sgt. Latham was
aware of my original CHARGES and also was aware that someone in Upper D unit will beat
me up.
So the Warden stay as sole Defendant he is the manager the boss and all officer and other
staff has to obey his rules and regulation of the boss. So the Warden is involved in the beting
[sic]. And I was not placed on protective custody so that Warden failed to give me reasonable
safety.
It appears from Plaintiff’s statement of facts that, at the time he was assaulted at M.C.C.C.,
Plaintiff was being held on $250,000 bail. Although the bail amount suggests that Plaintiff was
detained on serious charges, he does not describe the nature of the charges. It also appears that
he was housed in Upper D unit at the time he was assaulted, but it is not entirely clear whether he
was on Management Control Status, i.e., in protective custody, or was housed in the general
population.
2
4.
The general duty to protect inmates from assaults by other inmates is well-
established. 1 See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (transsexual prisoner alleged that
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety by placing him in the general prison
population). “It is not, however, every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another
that translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim's safety.”
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Instead, liability for failure to protect requires that the "official knows
of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety". Id. at 837. Applying the
standard announced in Farmer, the first question is whether the Amended Complaint has alleged
facts suggesting that Plaintiff in particular, or inmates in general, faced a serious risk of harm
while housed at M.C.C.C. The second question is whether the Amended Complaint has alleged
facts from which it could be inferred that Warden Cicchi was aware of and disregarded that risk.
5. Here, even assuming that Plaintiff is attempting to allege that Warden Cicchi failed to
place him in protective custody per M.C.C.C. policies, this failure, standing alone, does not
amount to a constitutional violation and, thus, would not state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff has provided no facts to suggest that Warden Cicchi knew that Plaintiff faced a
As a pretrial detainee, rather than a convicted prisoner, Plaintiff retains liberty interests
grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Fuentes v. Wagner, 206
F.3d 335, 341 n. 9 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 821 (2000). Practically speaking, however,
courts have analyzed claims of failure to protect by pretrial detainees under the “deliberate
indifference” standard set forth in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, as the due process rights of
a pretrial detainee are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment rights of a convicted prisoner.
Mohamed v. Aviles, 2007 WL 923506, at *6 (D.N.J. March 26, 2007) (citing Turner v. Cupp,
238 F.3d 424, 2000 WL 1141423, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug.4, 2000)). In similar cases, the Third
Circuit has indicated that deliberate indifference is the appropriate standard in the context of a
Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. See A.M. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cty. Juvenile
Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 587 (3d Cir. 2004); Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F.3d 150, 166 n. 22 (3d
Cir.2005) (applying Eighth Amendment doctrine to pretrial detainees raising claims of failure to
protect and inadequate medical care); see also Strobert v. Ocean Cty. Jail, No. CIV.A. 07-3172
GEB, 2011 WL 63601, at *4 (D.N.J. Jan. 7, 2011) (explaining same).
1
3
specific or general threat of assault in Upper D unit and that he failed “take reasonable measures
to protect [Plaintiff] from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” See Hamilton v. Leavy, 117
F.3d 742, 746 (3d Cir. 1997). Rather, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint attempts to hold Warden
Cicchi responsible for the alleged assault solely on account of his position as a supervisor, i.e.,
“the boss”; however, respondeat superior is not a basis for section 1983 liability. See Rode v.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1998) (explaining that “[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”). The Amended Complaint, as drafted does not
state a claim for relief against Warden Cicchi.
6.
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also states that Sgt. Latham
“was aware of my original CHARGES and also was aware that someone in Upper D unit will
beat [Plaintiff] up.” The Amended Complaint, however, has not alleged facts suggesting that
Sgt. Latham knew Plaintiff faced a serious risk of harm while housed at M.C.C.C. and was
deliberately indifferent to that risk. Without some factual support, the Court need not credit
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that Sgt. Latham “was aware” that Plaintiff would be assaulted
by “someone” in Upper D unit. As such, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, as drafted, would also
fail to state a claim for relief against Sgt. Latham.
7.
The Court therefore, dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because it is possible that Plaintiff could amend his
Complaint to provide facts that would state a claim for relief against Warden Cicchi or Sgt.
Latham, the Court will administratively terminate the action and provide Plaintiff with 30 days in
which to submit a Second Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies described herein. An
appropriate Order follows.
4
/s/ Freda L. Wolfson
Freda L. Wolfson
United States District Judge
Date: May 17, 2016
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?