LEONCINI v. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 8/22/2016. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RICHARD LEONCINI,
Civil Action No. 15-6978 (PGS)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
:
N.J. DEP’T OF CORR., et al.,
Defendants.
It appearing that:
1.
Plaintiff Richard Leoncini (“Plaintiff’), a convicted and sentenced state prisoner
currently confined at South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, filed his initial
Complaint in this matter on September 17, 2015, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights
for failing to protect him from an assault.
(ECF No. 1.)
He named only the New Jersey
Department of Corrections and Trenton State Prison as defendants. (Id.)
2.
On December 3, 2015, this Court entered an Opinion and Order dismissing the
Complaint in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) because
neither the Department of Corrections nor Trenton State Prison is a “person” under 42 U.S.C.
§
1983. (ECF Nos. 5-6.) However, because it was conceivable that Plaintiff could name proper
defendants, the Court granted permission to file an amended complaint.
(Id.) The Court also
noted, without finding, that Plaintiffs claim may be time-barred. (Id.)
3. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a ‘Motion for More ‘lime” in which he argues
that the Department of Corrections showed neglect by not considering Plaintiffs mental illness
when placing him in general population. (ECF No. 7.) On June 21, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an
amended complaint, which was inadvertently filed as a new case. (See Leoncini V. Dep ‘t of Corr.,
et al., Civil Action No. 16-3846.)
4. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff essentially re-asserts all of the factual allegations
contained in his initial Complaint, except he now names the Department of Corrections, Trenton
State Prison and Toms River Superior Court as the only defendants. (Civil Action No. 16-3846,
ECFNo. 1.)
5. As stated in this Court’s previous Opinion, the Department of Corrections and New
Jersey State Prison are not “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§
1983. See Will v. Mich.
Dep’t ofState Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71(1989); Grabow v. S. State Corr. Facility, 726 F.Supp. 537
538—39 (D.N.J. 1989) (noting that state department of corrections and state prison facilities are not
“persons” under
liability under
§
§
1983). The Superior Court of New Jersey is also not a “person” subject to
1983. Ray v. New Jersey, 219 F. App’x 121, 124 (3d Cir. 2007); Briggs v. Moore,
251 F. Appx 77, 79 (3d Cir. 2007). The claims against these Defendants will be dismissed with
prejudice. Flowever, because it is conceivable that Plaintiff may be able to amend his pleading to
name appropriate defendants, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to move to re-open this case and
to file a second amended complaint.
1
In his Complaint and Amended Complaint, Plaintiff discusses personal health information.
Caution must be exercised when documents such as health and medical records are filed in a case.
(See L.Civ.R. 5.2, ¶ 17). Indeed, individuals maintain privacy interests in their medical
information. Despite this privacy interest, Plaintiff has discussed his personal health information
for public filing on the docket in this matter. As a result, the Court hereby temporarily seals ECF
Nos. 1 and 7 in the instant matter and ECF No. 1 in Civil Action No. 16-3846, which contain
Plaintiffs personal health information, pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(6).
To the extent Plaintiff wishes to maintain the privacy of his health information on a
permanent basis, he must file a formal motion to seal with the Court within 45 days of the date of
2
6. An appropriate order follows.
Dated:
Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J.
this Opinion and Order. In his motion, Plaintiff must meet all of the requirements of L. Civ. R.
5.3(c)(2): the motion papers must describe (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue,
(b) the legitimate private or public interests which warrant the relief sought, (c) the clearly defined
and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted, and (d) why a less restrictive
alternative to the relief sought is not available. Plaintiff must identify the specific portions of his
Complaints that contain his confidential health information that he seeks to seal and he must also
provide the reason(s) why he believes they should be sealed. In the interim. ECF Nos. I and 7 in
the instant matter and EUF No. I in Civil Action No. 16-3846 shall remain sealed on a temporary
basis. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he fails to file a timely motion to seal in accordance with the
instructions outlined above, those documents will be unsealed and become publicly available.
2
The Clerk of the Court will be directed to file the complaint docketed in Civil Action No. 163846 as an amended complaint in this matter and to mark that matter closed.
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?