Paladino v. Newsome

Brian PALADINO, Plaintiff, v. K. NEWSOME, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 12-2021

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Date: June 27, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter has come before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Warren, Crothers, Gerdes, Nellsen, Holder, and Lanigan (collectively, "Defendants").¹ (Docket Entry No. 45). Plaintiff Brian Paladino ("Plaintiff") opposes the motion. (Docket Entry Nos. 47, 53). The Court has decided the motion after considering the parties' written submissions and without oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts of this case and recites briefly those facts relevant to the Court's decision.

A. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that in October 2010, during a "break" from placement in a restraint chair for his own protection, he was fed a sandwich and given a juice cup. (Docket Entry No. 1at ¶¶ 22-29; Docket Entry No. 3 at ¶¶ 25-32). He claims that when he tried to get a drink of water from the sink, Sergeant Newsome ("Newsome") and "John Doe" officers threw him to the floor and beat him. (Id.). He alleges that on another occasion, Newsome and other "John Doe" officers choked him, kicked him in the testicles, and put his head underwater to deprive him of air. (Id.). He alleges that on this second occasion, he heard the officers state that they were acting at the command of Sergeant Perkins ("Perkins"), Sergeant Antoinello ("Antoinello"), Lieutenant Crothers ("Crothers"), and Lieutenant Gerdes ("Gerdes"). (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that he suffered excruciating pain and injuries requiring twenty staples in his head. (Id.).

Plaintiff also alleges that he has been confined in administrative segregation since November 2010. (Docket Entry No. 1 at ¶¶ 30-35). He alleges that during this time, he has had outdoor exercise on only one occasion, (Docket Entry No. 3 at ¶ 55), despite the fact that prisoners in administrative segregation are entitled to outdoor recreation in a small caged yard. (Docket Entry No. 1 at ¶¶ 30-31). He claims this lack of exercise has caused him to suffer migraine headaches, muscle cramps, and "lazy bones." (Id. at ¶ 36, Docket Entry No. 3 at ¶ 54).

Plaintiff alleges that his conditions of confinement also include 24-hour lockdown, a 10-minute shower three times a week, no contact visitation, no opportunity to earn good time credits, an inability to attend religious services, an inability to participate in educational programs, and the deprivation of other privileges ordinarily afforded the general prison population. (Docket Entry No. 1 at ¶ 30). Plaintiff also alleges that from May 20, 2011 to February 6, 2012, Officers White ("White"), Pinkston ("Pinkston"), and Impagliazzo ("Impagliazzo") regularly deprived Plaintiff of his meals. (Id. at ¶ 32). He also claims that White and Pinkston refused to dispense hygiene supplies to him, including toilet paper and soap. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that on February 6, 2012, he was transferred to another unit and that, since that date, Officers Ilardi ("Ilardi"), Maura ("Maura"), and Dominguez ("Dominguez") haverefused to provide him cleaning supplies, which Plaintiff claims he needs because his cell is dirty and moldy. (Id. at ¶ 33). He claims that when he has complained about the conditions of his confinement, the officers to whom he complained have told him that they are acting on the instructions of Administrator Warren ("Warren"), Assistant Superintendent Nellson ("Nellson"), and Commissioner Lanigan ("Lanigan"). (Id. at ¶¶ 34, 35).

Plaintiff also alleges that from the time his appeals of his conviction became final in May of 2011, he has been deprived of paralegal assistance and monthly legal supplies. (Id. at ¶¶ 37-43). He alleges that in November 2011, Sergeant Perkins ("Perkins") instructed White and Pinkston to conduct a cell search and confiscate Plaintiff's legal documents regarding his conviction and criminal appeals. (Id. at ¶ 41). Plaintiff also claims that Pinkston confiscated Plaintiff's personal property on November 29, 2011. (Docket Entry No. 3 at ¶ 57).

Plaintiff also alleges that on January 3, 2012, Perkins confiscated Plaintiff's prescription eyeglasses and his dentures. (Docket Entry No. 1 at ¶ 42). He claims that he is suffering blurry vision and headaches without his glasses. (Id.). He also alleges that he is experiencing pain and difficulty eating without his dentures. (Id.).

Plaintiff alleges that on January 3, 2012, Sergeant Anderson ("Anderson") and Officer Holder ("Holder") kicked and punched him in the head, causing a gash above the eye. (Docket Entry No. 3 at ¶ 59). He also alleges that on February 5, 2012, "John Doe" officers maced him with pepper spray and twisted his toe until it fractured. (Id.).

B. Procedural History

On April 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint, (Docket Entry No. 1), and then filed an amended complaint (collectively, "Complaint") on June 28, 2012, (Docket Entry No. 3). In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks relief for a number of constitutional violations. First, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by (1) using excessive force on two occasionswhen Newsome and "John Doe" officers allegedly beat Plaintiff; (2) subjecting him to substandard conditions of confinement by limiting him to three showers per week and depriving him of meals, recreation, contact visitation, educational programs, hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, and the opportunity to earn good time credits; and (3) providing inadequate medical care, particularly by taking from him and then denying him prescription eyeglasses and dentures. (Id.). He also claims that Defendants violated the First Amendment by denying him access to religious services. (Id.). He claims they also denied him access to the courts by failing to provide him with adequate paralegal assistance in violation of his First Amendment and Due Process rights. (Id.). He also claims that Defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving him of meals, cleaning supplies, writing supplies, and hygiene supplies that were provided to other similarly situated inmates. (Id.).

On August 13, 2012, this Court dismissed several of Plaintiff's claims sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. (Docket Entry Nos. 4, 5). A number of Plaintiff's claims survived, however, including his claims for (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) inadequate medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (4) disparate treatment in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Docket Entry No. 4).

On January 4, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment as to those remaining claims. (Docket Entry No. 45). Plaintiff responded on January 18, 2013, opposing the motion on grounds that (1) Defendants were precluded from making a motion to dismiss because the Court had already dismissed certain claims sua sponte; and (2) summary judgment was premature because Plaintiff had not had the opportunity to conduct discovery. (Docket Entry No. 47). As the Court found those arguments inadequate to address the issuesraised by Defendants in their motion, the Court provided Plaintiff with an additional opportunity to respond to Defendants' motion. (See Docket Entry No. 50). Specifically, the Court instructed Plaintiff to submit any evidence, including documents, affidavits or declarations, that address whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies prior to initiating this lawsuit. (Id.). Plaintiff submitted such materials on February 26, 2013. (Docket Entry No. 53). The Court now considers the merits of Defendants' motion.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Defendants seek relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56. (See Docket Entry No. 45).

A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that pleadings contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule 8 "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a "defendant bears the burden of showing that no claim has been presented." Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005).

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court should conduct a three-part analysis. Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). "First, the court must 'take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.'" Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675). Second, the court must accept as true all of a plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). But, the court should disregard any conclusory allegations proffered in the complaint. Id. Finally, once the well-pleaded facts have beenidentified and the conclusory allegations ignored, a court must next determine whether the "facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that plaintiff has a 'plausible claim for relief.'" Id. at 211 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). This requires more than a mere allegation of an entitlement to relief. Id. "A complaint has to 'show' such an entitlement with its facts." Id. A claim is only plausible if the facts pleaded allow a court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 210 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Facts suggesting the "mere possibility of misconduct"...