Bayete v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs.

1

KOFI BAYETE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-2975 (KMW) (EAP)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

December 21, 2023

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Hon Karen M. Williams, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff filed a response to the motion (ECF No. 37), to which Defendants replied. (ECF No. 40.) Also before the Court is Defendants' motion to seal portions of the record containing Plaintiff's confidential personal records and prison procedures. (ECF No 36.) Because of the nature of the records in question, the lack of opposition to the motion to seal, and the privacy interests involved, this Court grants the motion to seal. For the following reasons Defendants motion for summary judgment shall be granted, Plaintiffs federal claims shall be dismissed for lack of exhaustion, and Plaintiffs state law claims will be remanded to state court.

I. BACKGROUND

During the operative timeframe of his complaint, Plaintiff was a prisoner confined in South Woods State Prison. (ECF No. 34-2 at 2; ECF No. 37-1 at 1.) Prior to his transfer to South Woods in 2014, Plaintiff has used a wheelchair for transportation. (Id.) Plaintiff has a history of knee and back related issues, including multiple total knee replacements, which have contributed to his need for the wheelchair. (Id.) In June 2020, Plaintiff refused a housing transfer and was moved to a detention unit within the prison. (Id.) Plaintiff was ultimately placed in cell 1024 of the C-Pod housing unit. (ECF No. 34-2 at 3-4; ECF No. 37-1 at 1-2.) Plaintiff asked to be moved to an adjacent cell which had an electrical outlet so that he could use a word processor to work on his criminal appeal, and that request was granted the same day. (Id.) Plaintiff was moved to cell 1023, which had an outlet, on July 14, 2020, but was not promised or guaranteed that he could remain in that cell indefinitely. (Id.)

On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff was informed that he was being moved out of cell 1023 to a different cell in the unit which lacked an outlet. (Id.) The parties disagree over which officers told Plaintiff of the move - records provided by Defendants indicate that Sergeant Corson, Sergeant Pipitone, and Officer Detetta were present and told Plaintiff he needed to move, while Plaintiff testified that Defendant Joubert was present and told him he was being moved on the administrator's orders. (Id.) Joubert, however, maintains that he was not present and was working elsewhere at the time of the incident. (ECF No. 34-2 at 5.) Plaintiff became upset at the news and told the officers, “I don't know what I might do” if forced to leave cell 1023, which the officers interpreted as a possible threat of self-harm. (ECF No. 34-2 at 5, ECF No. 37-1 at 2.) Plaintiff was thereafter examined by psychiatric staff and placed on suicide watch and moved to a holding cell. (Id.)

Plaintiff underwent an initial medical check and was cleared for placement in a constant watch cell, in which he was subject to 24 hour video monitoring. (ECF No. 34-2 at 6-7; ECF No. 37-1 at 3.) Medical personnel cleared Plaintiff to have only the following during the watch period: a “suicide gown, suicide blanket, suicide mattress, other-finger food only.” (Id.) Medical did not indicate that Plaintiff should have access to his wheelchair while on watch, though Plaintiff believes he should have had access to it in light of his general permission to use a wheelchair in the prison. (Id.)

Plaintiff thereafter spent three full days in the suicide watch cell without access to a wheelchair. (Id.) During those three days, Defendants Joubert and Pipitone assert they were working elsewhere in the prison and did not have further direct interaction with Plaintiff, a point Plaintiff denies, testifying that each saw him laying on the floor. (Id.) According to Plaintiff j while in the watch cell, he “couldn't get up and walk around” and had to “crawl on my hand and knees” to get to his food or medication, which caused his knee pain to worsen, (ECF No. 37-3 at 17-22.) Plaintiff was provided medication and three meals a day including milk or juice. (Id. at 25-26.) Plaintiff testified that he had difficulty using the restroom as he couldn't stand properly, and therefore had to relieve himself on the floor, which thereafter required him to crawl through his waste to get his food and medication. (Id. at 22-24.) Plaintiff was provided a device in which to defecate, but was unable to use it properly and did not defecate while in the watch cell. (Id. At 26, 31-32.) Plaintiff testified that he complained to the officers who came to check on him, with no results for three days. (Id. at 27-29.) After approximately three days in the watch cell, a Lieutenant Costa entered, saw Plaintiffs state, and ordered that he be brought his chair as he needed it to get around. (Id. at 19, 27.) Plaintiff was then taken out of the watch cell and moved to a cell with a medical bed, (Id.)

Plaintiffs medical records indicate that he was placed in constant watch on the advice of psychiatric staff following his statements to guards because Plaintiff “refused to engage adequately with medical and mental health services” such that they could clear him of a self harm risk without a stay in a watch cell. (ECF No. 34-2 at 11.) Plaintiff was seen by medical staff several times while in the watch cell, including on August 11, 2020 at 7:56 p.m., when he refused to talk to a staff member who visited him. (Id. at 10.) A nurse thereafter visited Plaintiff the following morning at 1:34 a.m., but Plaintiff had “no concerns [or] complaints” at that time. (Id.) Later that day, at 3:15 p.m., psychiatric staff noted plaintiff s unwillingness to engage with them. (Id. at 11.) At 12 a.m. on August 13, a nurse returned and Plaintiff told her he was tired from crawling across the floor to retrieve food and medication, but the nurse told him she was not allowed to enter the cell further pursuant to suicide watch regulations to give him medication. (Id.) Following the return of Plaintiff s wheelchair at approximately 8 p.m. on August 13, 2020, Plaintiff was seen again by a nurse and cleared for a transfer to the new cell with the bed. (Id.) Medical staff saw Plaintiff again the following morning at 6:59 a.m., where no major issues were noted. (Id. At 11-12.) Plaintiffs records thus indicate that he was in the watch cell from his refusal to move cells on August 11 until approximately 8 p.m. on August 13,2020. (Id.) Plaintiff) however, insisted he remained in the watch cell without a wheelchair until the morning of August 14. (ECF No. 34-7 at 31.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Rule 56, a court should grant a motion for summary judgment where the record “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of “identifying those portions of the pleadings depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A factual dispute is material “if it bears on an essential element of the plaintiffs claim,” and is genuine if “a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party.” Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist, 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). In deciding a motion for summary judgment a district court must “view the underlying facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,” id., but must not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, [however,] there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsuhita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

Once the moving party has met this initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party who must provide evidence sufficient to establish that a reasonable jury could find in the non-moving party's favor to warrant the denial of a summary judgment motion. Lawrence v. Nat'l Westminster Bank New Jersey, 98 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 1996); Serodio v. Rutgers, 27 F.Supp.3d 546, 550 (D.N.J. 2014).

“A nonmoving party has created a genuine issue of material fact if it has provided sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find in its favor at trial. However, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment cannot rest on mere allegations, instead it must present actual evidence that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact for trial.”

Serodio, 27 F.Supp.3d at 550.

III. DISCUSSION

In their motion, Defendants first argue that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his i administrative remedies prior to filing suit, and that his complaint must be dismissed as a result. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, before a prisoner may file a civil rights suit challenging “prison conditions,” he is required to exhaust all available administrative remedies. Woodford v Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84-85 (2006). Indeed, a prisoner is required to “exhaust administrative remedies even j where the relief sought - [such as] monetary damages cannot be granted by the administrative process.” Id., see also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 734 (2001). Where an administrative procedure is available, a plaintiff seeking to challenge prison conditions via a federal civil rights action must fully and properly exhaust his administrative remedies...