BRAGG v. ELLIS et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 1/5/2016. (eaj)

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

JAN 0 5 2016
AT 8:30
WILLIAM T. WALSH
CLERK

BRIAN KEITH BRAGG,
No.

Plaintiff,

Civil Action
(AET-LHG)

15~7638

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES ELLIS, et al.,
Defendants.

Thompson, District Judge

1.

On October 21, 2015, Brian Keith Bragg, submitted a

civil complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by various employees of the Mercer
County Correctional Center ("MCCC"), including its warden,
Charles Ellis.

(Docket Entry 1). The Court granted his

application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the Clerk
to file the complaint.
2.

(Docket Entry 2) .

On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for

preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, alleging
that since the filing of his complaint, he has been subjected to
threats of violence by MCCC staff and inmates.

(Docket Entry 4

!! 3-6) . Plaintiff alleged Warden Ellis was non-responsive to
his requests for protection.
3.

(Docket Entry 4 ! 7).

On December 9, 2015, this Court, having screened the

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permitted the complaint

M

to proceed in part and ordered surrunonses issued.

(Docket Entries

5 and 6) .
4.

The Court also ordered Warden Ellis to show cause

within 14 days of service as to why an injunction should not
issue.
5.

(Docket Entry 8, revised by Docket Entry 9).
Plainti£f filed a letter in support of his motion on

December 23, 2015, asserting that he was placed into protective
custody on December 15, 2015.

(Docket Entry 14 at 3).

He also

stated MCCC Officer Christie told his new cellmates that
Plaintiff was a "snitch."· (Docket Entry 14 at 3-4). He alleges
Warden Ellis has refused to move him to "star protective
custody." (Docket Entry 14 at 4).
6.

On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to

expedite his motion for preliminary injunction.

(Docket Entry

15) .
7.

Counsel for Defendants Ellis and Sergeant Kalownoski

entered an appearance on January 4, 2016.
8.

(Docket Entry 17).

Plaintiff's motion to expedite the Order to Show Cause

contains the same factual allegations raised in his initial
motion, namely that certain MCCC officers are calling Plaintiff
a "snitch" in front of other inmates, and Warden Ellis has not
taken corrective action.
Docket Entry 15

~l

(Compare Docket Entry 4

1-6).
2

~~

3-7, with

9.

The Court issued an order to show cause to Warden

Ellis directing a response within 14 days of service of that
order,

{Docket Entry 9), and nothing in Plaintiff's motion to

expedite suggests a need to expedite the response to the Order.
The motion to expedite is denied in that respect.
10.

A~though

the Court shall not order an expedited

response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff's motion to
expedite his motion shall be granted to the extent that the
Court shall schedule a hearing on the motion for the earliest
possible time after the submission of a response to the Order to
Show Cause.
11.

An appropriate Order follows.

U.S. District Judge

3