BRAGG v. PATTERSON et al

Filing 28

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 2/8/2017. (km)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BRIAN KEITH BRAGG,

HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 15-6292 (AET-TJB)

v.
RAQUEL PATTERSON, et al.,

OPINION
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
BRIAN KEITH BRAGG, Plaintiff pro se
533330
Mercer County Correctional Center
PO Box 8068
Trenton, New Jersey 08650

RECE\VED

FEB

~

o2017

WAL~WILLIAM 1.
""'
r,.\ FPll

AT 8:30

M

THOMPSON, District Judge:
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Brian Keith Bragg filed a motion asking the Court

to reopen his civil suit that was dismissed without. prejudice on
March 18, 2016. Motion to Reopen, Docket Entry 27. For the
reasons set forth below, the motion is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff may refile his motion if he can provide a better
reason for his failure to respond to the Court's previous
orders.

II .

BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed this complaint against

several employees of the Mercer County Correctional FaGility

("MCCC"), including Counselor Raquel Patterson, Officer Brown,
Officer Crawford, Officer Christie, Sergeant Friel, and
Lieutenant John Doe. Plaintiff alleged violations of his First,
Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Amendment rights. Complaint, Docket
Entry 1 at 7-8. He stated that he signed himself into protective
custody due to harassment and threats of physical violence from
MCCC employees, allegedly done out of retaliation for filing
lawsuits against MCCC and its' employees. Id. at 8. The Court
permitted the complaint to proceed on November 18, 2015, and the
Clerk's Office sent Marshal Form 285 to Plaintiff for his
completion. Clerk's Letter, Docket Entry 20. Summons were issued
on November 30, 2015 after Plaintiff returned the forms. Docket
Entry 21. On February 2, 2016, the summons were returned
executed. Docket Entry 22.
On February 4, 2016, counsel for defendants wrote to the
Court and indicated that Plaintiff had been released from MCCC
on January 19, 2016. Mercer County Counsel Letter, Docket Entry
23. Counsel further indicated that Plaintiff had not provided a
forwarding address.

Id. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause

why the case should not be dismissed under Local Civil Rule 10.1
on February 16, 2016. Order to Show Cause, Docket Entry 24. The
Order was returned as undeliverable on March 4, 2016. Docket
Entry 25. As Plaintiff had not advised the Court of his current
address or otherwise contacted the Court within the timeframe
2

set forth in the Order to Show Cause, the case was dismissed
without prejudice on March 18, 2016. Dismissal Order, Docket
Entry 26. The Court indicated it would reopen the case in the
event Plaintiff was able to demonstrate good cause for failing
to comply with the local rules and Court orders. Id.
Eight months later, Plaintiff wrote to the Court and asked
to reopen the case. Motion to Reopen. He "asserts that he was
never given written notice via US Postal Service from the
District Court that this case was allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis or was plaintiff issued any summon's [sic] form to
serve on the defendants." Id. at 2. He asks the Court to reissue
the summons and allow him to serve the defendants. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has not provided good cause to reopen this
complaint. In addition, to providing no explanation as to why he
failed to keep his address current, a requirement of which this
Plaintiff is well aware,

1

and failed to contact the Court at all

during the eight month period between the dismissal of the case
and his motion to reopen, Plaintiff's stated justification for
reopening is clearly contradicted by the record. After the Court
permitted the complaint to proceed, the Clerk's Office sent
Marshal Form 285 to Plaintiff for the purpose of serving

1

See Bragg v. Aramark Food Serv., No. 13-4088, 2016 WL 4204550,
at *3-4 (D.N.J. Aug. 9, 2016).
3

defendants. As shown on the executed summons, Plaintiff signed
the forms and returned them to the Clerk's Office on November
24, 2015. Docket Entry 22. His statement that he was unaware
that his complaint was proceeding and did not receive summons is
contradicted by the record. The motion is denied.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's motion is denied
without prejudice, and he may refile his motion if he can
provide a 'better reason for his failure to respond to the
Court's previous orders. 2 An accompanying Order will be entered.

ANNE
U.S. District Judge

2

Plaintiff is reminded that all motions must be served on
opposing counsel.
4