Fennell v. Camden Cnty. Facility, Civil Action No. 16-cv-07309 (JBS-AMD)

CATHY A. FENNELL, Plaintiff, v. CAMDEN COUNTY FACILITY, CAMDEN C.O. MRS. OR MS. LITTLES,PINE HILL POLICE DEPT., and NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPERS, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-cv-07309 (JBS-AMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

June 8, 2017

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

OPINION

APPEARANCES

Cathy A. Fennell, Plaintiff Pro Se

413 North Warwick Road

Somerdale, NJ 08083

SIMANDLE, District Judge:

1. Plaintiff Cathy A. Fennell seeks to bring a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden County Facility ("CCF"), Camden C.O. Mrs. or Ms. Littles ("Littles"), Pine Hill Police Dept. ("PHP"), and New Jersey State Troopers ("State Troopers") for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.

2. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires courts to review complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Courts must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. This action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

3. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice in part and dismiss it without prejudice in part. The Complaint: (a) is dismissed with prejudice as to claims made against defendant CCF; (b) is dismissed without prejudice as to harassment claims against defendant Littles; (c) is dismissed without prejudice as to defendant PHP regarding conditions of confinement claims for alleged overcrowding and regarding false arrest / false imprisonment claims; (d) is dismissed with prejudice as to claims against defendant State Troopers regarding conditions of confinement for alleged overcrowding; (e) is dismissed without prejudice as to claims against defendant State Troopers for false arrest/false imprisonment; (f) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim as to conditions of confinement regarding overcrowding allegations, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); (g) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim as to conditions of confinement regarding alleged inadequate medical care; and (h) is dismissed without prejudice as to Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claim regarding jail conditions for provision of basic hygiene products and clean clothes ("Jail Hygiene Conditions Claim").With regard to all claims that are dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 60 days after the date of this Opinion that corrects the deficiencies noted in this Opinion, if Plaintiff chooses to pursue such claim or claims. Any such amended complaint shall be subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. With regard to the Jail Hygiene Conditions claim specifically, upon Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint naming the party(ies) whom she alleges are liable under the Jail Hygiene Conditions Claim, such claim shall be subject to dismissal without further notice for failure to state a claim.

Standard of Review

4. To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a claim, the Complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter" to show that the claim is facially plausible. Fowler v. UPMS Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014). "[A] pleading that offers 'labels or conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, "pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Claims Against CCF: Dismissed With Prejudice

5. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983¹ for alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. In order to set forth a prima facie case under § 1983, a plaintiff must show: "(1) a person deprived him of a federal right; and (2) the person who deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law." Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980)).

6. Generally, for purposes of actions under § 1983, "[t]he term 'persons' includes local and state officers acting under color of state law." Carver v. Foerster, 102 F.3d 96, 99 (3d Cir. 1996) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)).² Tosay that a person was "acting under color of state law" means that the defendant in a § 1983 action "exercised power [that the defendant] possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer [was] clothed with the authority of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (citation omitted). Generally, then, "a public employee acts under color of state law while acting in his official capacity or while exercising his responsibilities pursuant to state law." Id. at 50.

7. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from CCF for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The CCF, however, is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983; therefore, the claims against it must be dismissed with prejudice. See Crawford v. McMillian, 660 F. App'x 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2016) ("[T]he prison is not an entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.") (citing Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)); Grabow v. Southern State Corr. Facility, 726 F. Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility is not a "person" under § 1983). Given that the claims against the CCF must be dismissed withprejudice, the claims may not proceed and Plaintiff may not name the CCF as a defendant.

Harassment Claims Against Littles:

Dismissed Without Prejudice

8. Plaintiff alleges that Littles is a Camden County corrections officer who "verbally abuse[d] me. I felt like the warden wasn't notified about the situation." Complaint, Docket Entry 1, at 6.

9. However, allegations of verbal abuse or threats, unaccompanied by injury or damage, are not cognizable under § 1983, regardless of whether the inmate is a pretrial detainee or sentenced prisoner. Brown v. Hamilton Twp. Police Dep't Mercer County, New Jersey, 547 F. App'x 96, 97-98 (3d Cir. 2013). Accord Mimms v. U.N.I.C.O.R., 386 F. App'x 32, 35 (3d Cir. 2010); Aleem-X v. Westcott, 347 F. App'x 731, 732 (3d Cir. 2009); Richardson v. Sherrer, 344 F. App'x 755, 757 (3d Cir. 2009); Patterson v. Bradford, No. 10-5043, 2011 WL 1983357, at *5 (D.N.J. May 20, 2011) (citations omitted).

10. Here, Plaintiff does not allege an accompanying violation of injury or damage that might allow the alleged verbal harassment to state a separate due process claim in violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights.

11. At most, Plaintiff alleges that she was offended by Little's unspecified remarks, but Plaintiff does not offer any facts that are necessary for the abuse to rise to the level of a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights. The allegation of"verbal abuse" in the Complaint is insufficient to support a claim that Littles was verbally harassing Plaintiff as a form of punishment or to deprive Plaintiff of any of her constitutional rights.

12. Consequently, because the alleged verbal harassment of Plaintiff was not accompanied by any injurious actions — or physical actions of any kind - by Littles, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim for a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. This claim will be dismissed without prejudice accordingly.

Claims Against PHP: (1) Dismissed Without Prejudice As To

Overcrowded Conditions of Confinement Claims; and (2)

Dismissed Without Prejudice As To False Arrest / False

Imprisonment Claims

13. The Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice as to claims made against PHP regarding overcrowded conditions of confinement and regarding false arrest / false imprisonment.

14. First, as to claims regarding overcrowded conditions of confinement, Plaintiff contends that PHP took her post-arrest to CCF on August 15, 2016, where she then spent two months sleeping on the floor and sustained various physical injuries from such conditions. Complaint §§ III(B), III(C), IV, and V. Plaintiff cannot allege that the PHP is liable for conditions of confinement at the CCF, which is under the control of Camden County. Allegations about unconstitutional conditions ofconfinement directed against PHP, therefore, must be dismissed with prejudice.

15. Second, as to claims regarding false arrest / false imprisonment by PHP, Plaintiff "would like to be compensate[d] for pain & suffering for being wrongly arrested on 8-15-16." Complaint § V.

16. There are two elements for assertion of a prima facie claim for false arrest: (1) constraint of the person against her will (2) that is without legal justification. Gibson v. Superintendent of NJ Dep't of Law and Public Safety-Division of State Police, 411 F.3d 427, 451 (3d Cir. 2005).

17. Here, Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient facts from which this Court can reasonably infer that the August 15, 2016 arrest of Plaintiff by PHP was without legal justification, as required for assertion of a claim for false arrest / false imprisonment. Gibson, 411 F.3d at 451.

18. Plaintiff's Complaint contains scant, if any, facts pertaining to her alleged false arrest, other than her suggestion that the charge against her lacked merit. Complaint § V ("[I was] wrongly arrested on 8-15-16"). As such, Plaintiff does not sufficiently plead a claim for false arrest /...