Edmonds v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, Civil Action No. 00-5669 (JBS) (D. N.J. 11/26/2001), Civil Action No. 00-5669 (JBS)

Page 1

JOHN EDMONDS, Plaintiff, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MR. ELLIS, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL STAFF OF MIDSTATE, OFFICER SEARS OF MIDSTATE, SERGEANT PHILLIPS OF MIDSTATE, JOHN J. FARMER, JR. and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ACTING COMMISSIONER, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 00-5669 (JBS)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

November 26, 2001.

Mr. John Edmonds, South Wood State Prison, Bridgeton, NJ, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Stephen D. Holtzman, Esq., Lally, Holtzman, Gilligan & Quasti, P.C., Linwood, NJ, Counsel for Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

John J. Farmer, Attorney General of New Jersey, By: Christopher C. Josephson, DAG, Trenton, NJ, Attorneys for Defendants Farmer, Maurer, and Ellis

OPINION

JEROME B. SIMANDLE, District Judge

John Edmonds ("Edmonds") is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at South Wood State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey. Edmonds alleges that defendants negligently caused him to slip and fall during a work detail by forcing him to work outside during a hurricane and violated his Eighth Amendment and civil rights arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they subsequently denied him adequate medical care for his injuries. Presently before this Court are three motions. The first two, by defendants Farmer, Maurer, and Ellis, seek dismissal of the complaint and supplemental complaint, citing Eleventh Amendment immunity and a failure to allege personal involvement in the alleged violations. The third motion, by Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS"), seeks summary judgment on all claims. The motions by CMS and Ellis are unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, this Court will grant defendants' respective motions and will dismiss the claims against them in the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint. Plaintiff's claims against Officer Sears and Sergeant Phillips are not resolved in this Opinion and shall continue in the ordinary course to trial.

I. BACKGROUND

Prior to being housed at South Wood State, Edmonds was held at Southern State Prison in Delmont, New Jersey, and prior to that he was housed at Mid-State Prison in Wrightstown, New Jersey. Edmonds submitted a Complaint, which was received by the Clerk of Court on November 14, 2000, against the Mr. Ellis, Superintendent of Mid-State, Correctional Medical Staff of Midstate,¹ Officer Sears, and Sergeant Phillips. The Complaint was processed and filed in forma pauperis on December 28, 2000. On February 22, 2001, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint, naming Attorney General John J. Farmer, Jr. and Department of Corrections Acting Commissioner Susan Maurer as defendants. On March 22, 2001, defendant CMS answered plaintiff's supplemental complaint and asserted cross-claims against the New Jersey Department of Corrections,² Ellis, Sears, Phillips, Farmer, and Maurer.

Edmonds's Complaint and supplemental complaint charge that defendants negligently caused Edmonds to slip and fall, resulting in an alleged back injury, by assigning him to a work detail in inclement weather, and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Edmonds seeks $ 3,000,000 in compensatory damages for his pain and suffering, $ 3,000,000 in punitive damages, $3,000,000 in "negligent damages," payment of all medical bills, and $10,000,000 for "mental damages."

During the time period relevant to plaintiff's allegations, he was an inmate at Mid-State Prison in Wrightstown, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that on September 9, 1999, he injured his back and neck after falling while participating in a prison work detail. (Compl. at 6.) Plaintiff describes the cause of his injuries as being related to defendants' insistence that he and other inmates work during a hurricane. (Compl. at 6; Supp. Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that as he was disembarking from the state van which transported him from Mid-State Prison to the work detail, he slipped and fell onto the curb, which was slick from the heavy rainfall. (Id.)

After the fall, plaintiff immediately reported back and neck pain and subsequently received medical care from prison providers. Plaintiff alleges that he was made to work three hours before he was removed from the work detail. (Id.) On September 10, 1999, plaintiff was seen by a nurse at Mid-State. (Supp. Compl. at 6.) On September 13, 1999, plaintiff was seen by a physician, who ordered x-rays and two weeks rest from work. (Id.) On September 14, 1999, plaintiff alleges that x-rays revealed vertebra damage.

On September 16, 1999, plaintiff was transferred from Mid-State Prison to the Bo Robinson Education and Training Center, a community release program in Trenton, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that he received no follow-up medical care for his back and neck injuries at the center. (Id. at 6-7.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standards of Review

Defendants Farmer, Maurer, and Ellis have moved to dismiss plaintiff Edmonds's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted does not attack the merits of the case, but merely tests the legal sufficiency of the Complaint. See Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the reviewing court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994); Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Assoc., 876 F. Supp. 625, 628-29 (D.N.J. 1994), aff'd, 70 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 1995). In considering the motion, a district court must also accept as true any and all reasonable inferences derived from those facts. See Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 (3d Cir. 1994). A court may not dismiss the Complaint "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed.2d 80 (1957).

Defendant CMS moves for a judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on Edmonds's Section 1983 claims.³ On a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine whether "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment of law." Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279, 287 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)). A party opposing summary judgment "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). If the nonmoving party fails to oppose the motion by evidence such as written objection, memorandum, or affidavits, the court "will accept as true all material facts set forth by the moving party with appropriate record support." Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Rev., 922 F.2d 168, 175 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Jaroma v. Massey, 873 F.2d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 1989)). If the nonmoving party has failed to establish a triable issue of fact, summary judgment will not be granted unless "appropriate" and only if movants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(e); see Anchorage Assocs., 922 F.2d at 175.

B. Standard for a Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

To properly state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for depravation of medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976); Taylor v. Plousis, 101 F. Supp. 2d 255, 262 (D.N.J. 2000).

The Third Circuit has defined a serious medical need as one that "has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment or one that is so obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." Monmouth County Correctional Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1006, 108 S. Ct. 1731, 100 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1988). A medical need could also be deemed serious when a delay in treatment would result in the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103.

To establish deliberate indifference, plaintiff must demonstrate that the official knew of and disregarded plaintiff's serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994)(requiring a level of culpability between the extremes of mere negligence and actual malice); Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3^rd Cir. 1988)(holding that defendant must have some type of personal involvement in the incidents alleged to have violated plaintiff's rights). Essentially, "plaintiff must establish that each defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate safety." Taylor, 101 F. Supp. 2d at 263 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 537, 114 S. Ct. at 1970).

C. Plaintiff's Claims Against Farmer, Maurer and Ellis

In his Complaint and Supplemental Complaint, plaintiff names Farmer, DOC Acting Commissioner Maurer, and Ellis as defendants in the caption, but fails to plead any facts linking them to the alleged violations that took place. (See Compl.; Supplemental Compl.) The supplemental complaint alleges cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but points to no admissible evidence of any direct involvement in such actions by Farmer, Maurer or Ellis. Defendants Farmer, Maurer, and Ellis urge this Court to dismiss the claims in plaintiff's Complaint and Supplemental Complaint against them because they are immune as defendants in their official capacity. Defendants Farmer, Maurer, and Ellis further seek summary judgment on plaintiff's claims against them in their individual capacities, citing plaintiff's failure to...