Hill v. United States

RONDELL HILL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 21-03872 (KM)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 30, 2021

OPINION

KEVIN MCNULTY United States District Judge

I. BACKGROUND

Pro se Plaintiff Rondell Hill, a pretrial detainee at Essex County Correctional Facility (ECCF), originally filed a complaint against the United States on March 8, 2021, alleging various civil rights violations related to restrictions imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic. (DE 1.) I previously granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status and leave to file an amended complaint. (DE 5.) Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint adding various defendants: federal (the Marshal's Service, this Court, Chief Judge Wolfson the Department of Justice), and state (Governor Murphy, Essex County, Director Ortiz, Warden Cirillo), plus a state contractor (CFG Medical Services). (DE 7.) Plaintiff also requests class certification, appointment of pro bono counsel, and injunctive relief.

Having screened the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), I will dismiss it for the following reasons.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (Apr. 26, 1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in which a plaintiff is proceeding IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The PLRA directs district courts to 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 Fed.Appx. 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)). That standard is set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), as explicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. To survive the court's screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must allege ‘sufficient factual matter' to show that the claim is facially plausible. See Fowler v. UPMC 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) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “[A] pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Pro se pleadings, as always, will be liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Nevertheless, “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).

A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for certain violations of constitutional rights. Section 1983 provides in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Thus, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege first, the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and second, that the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law. See Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep't, 635 F.3d 606, 609 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), is the federal counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Walker v. Zenk, 323 Fed.Appx. 144, 145 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Egervary v. Young, 366 F.3d 238, 246 (3d Cir. 2004)). To state a claim under Bivens, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that the deprivation of the right was caused by a person acting under color of federal law. See Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483, 491 (3d Cir. 2006) (discussing that Bivens created a right against federal officials parallel to Section 1983's right to assert a claim against state officials); see also Collins v. F.B.I, No. 10-3470, 2011 WL 1627025, at *6 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2011) (“The Third Circuit has recognized that Bivens actions are simply the federal counterpart to § 1983 claims brought against state officials and thus the analysis established under one type of claim is applicable under the other.”).

III. DISCUSSION

The amended complaint, like the initial complaint, asserts civil rights claims against the United States. The United States, however, is not subject to suit for constitutional torts, including these civil rights claims, and is entitled to absolute sovereign immunity in this matter. See, e.g., F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476-77, 484-85 (1994) (the United States is immune from suit for constitutional torts, and Bivens provides no cause of action against the United States or its agencies); Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 687 (1949) (sovereign immunity bars suit against the United States either for damages or for injunctive relief requiring government action); United States v. Rural Elec. Convenience Co-op. Co., 922 F.2d 429, 434 (7th Cir. 1991) (sovereign immunity bars suits seeking damages or coercive injunctive relief); Scott v. Manenti, No. 15-7213, 2016 WL 80640, at *1 n. 2 (D.N.J. Jan. 7, 2016). Plaintiff's civil rights claims against the United States must therefore be dismissed.

Likewise, many of the other named Defendants are also immune from suit. Federal departments and agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the United States Marshals Service, are immune from suit in civil rights matters. See, e.g., Hindes v. F.D.I.C., 137 F.3d 148, 158-59 (3d Cir. 1998) (federal governmental entities are not “persons” subject to suit in a federal civil rights matter); see also Gary v. Gardner, 445 Fed.Appx. 466-67 (3d Cir. 2011) (“the United States Marshals Service is entitled to sovereign immunity from suit” absent an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity). Chief Judge Wolfson is joined based on her issuance of the standing orders Plaintiff opposes. Those orders were clearly issued in a judicial rather than administrative capacity, notwithstanding Plaintiff's assertion to the contrary, and Judge Wolfson is therefore absolutely immune from suit in this civil rights matter. See, e.g., Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440-41 (3d Cir. 2000) (“judges . . . are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly”). Th United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sued as an entity, is likewise entitled to sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Gamble v. United States Dist. Ct. of Rhode Island, No. 18-778, 2019 WL 1301727, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 21, 2019). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against the United States, Judge Wolfson, this Court, the United States Marshals Service, and the United States Department of Justice are dismissed.

Plaintiff also contends that this Court's standing order violated his speedy trial rights and challenges the pre-trial conditions of confinement, including “severe isolation, ” lack of family and attorney visitation, and limited medical care. (DE 7 at 14-16.) Plaintiff poorly delineates which Defendants committed which alleged violations; he states only that Judge Wolfson issued the standing order he believes violated his speedy trial rights, that Governor Murphy issued “Covid-19 emergency orders that were used by defendants to deprive plaintiff of constitutional rights, ” that this Court and the United States employ some of the defendants and should be responsible as such, that Director Ortiz issued unspecified “emergency declarations, ” and that all of the Defendants other than this Court, Governor Murphy, and the United States, “conspired” to deprive him of his rights. (Id. at 6-7).

As discussed herein, Plaintiff does not, for the most part, specify which Defendants committed which violation, or support his allegations of conspiracy with factual allegations. Perhaps most problematically, Plaintiff does not specify how his own rights were violated, as opposed to making general allegations of restrictive conditions of confinement imposed on detainees in general. (Id. at 6-28).^[1]

As to the remaining named Defendants - Governor Murphy, Essex County, Director Ortiz, Warden Cirillo, and CFG Medical Services - Plaintiff fails to plead adequate facts which would indicate personal involvement in the alleged wrongs. A defendant in a federal civil rights matter may not be held liable based solely on his...