Sabetpour v. Martinez

FARDAD SABETPOUR, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH MARTINEZ a/ka DEBORAH L. PLAZA, et al., Defendants.

No. 19-10030 (KM) (MAH)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 6, 2021

OPINION

KEVIN MCNULTY United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Fardad Sabetpour (“Plaintiff” or “Mr Sabetpour”), was formerly detained at the Essex County Correctional Facility (“ECCF”) in Newark, New Jersey. He has filed a 145-page civil rights complaint that names dozens of Defendants and raises numerous claims. (See DE 1). Plaintiff was previously granted in forma pauperis status. (See DE 2).

At this time, this Court must screen the allegations of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether they are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or whether the allegations seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. For the following reasons, the complaint shall proceed in part.

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 in forma pauperis. 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).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS

The factual allegations of the complaint shall be taken as true for purposes of this screening opinion only. The named Defendants are:

1. Deborah Martinez a/k/a Deborah Plaza (hereinafter “Martinez/Plaza”)

2. Saywonza Cuevas

3. Virginia Dudley

4. Captain Pulitano

5. Lieutenant Cornelius

6. Essex County

7. Ann Sorrel

8. CFG Health Systems, LLC

9. Begonia Joseph

10. Santell Charles

11. Sergeant Slaide

12. Officer Mellito

13. Sergeant Crawford

14. Officer Cassidy

15. Officer Da Byrd

16. Officer R. Lewis

17. Sergeant Novak

18. Paula Sanders

19. Sved Rizvi

20. Paul O'Connor

21. Saladin Abdunafi

22. Meia Perkins

23. Lionel Anicette

24. Les Pachall

25. Alfaro Ortiz Jr.

26. Tiffany Wilson

27. Officer Bivona

28. Sergeant Ferrara

29. Joseph Divincenzo Jr.

30. Charles Green

Plaintiff notes the following causes of action:

1. Court Access I - against Martinez/Plaza, Cuevas, Dudley, Ortiz & Sorrel

2. Failure to Protect - against Mellito, Crawford & Slaide

3. Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs - against CFG Health Systems, Perkins, Sanders, Rizvi, O'Connor, Abdunafi, Anicette, Joseph, Charles, Martinez/Plaza, Dudley, Slaide, Novak, Cassidy, Da Byrd, Lewis & Wilson

4. Equal Protection - against Martinez/Plaza, Pulitano, Cornelius, Sorrel, Green, Bivona & Ferrara

5. Retaliation - against Martinez/Plaza, Pulitano, Cornelius, Sorrel, Cuevas, Dudley, Anicette, Ortiz Jr., Wilson, Bivona, Ferrera, Green, Rizvi, O'Connor, Perkins, Abdunafi & Sanders

6. Supervisor Liability - against Cuevas, Dudley, Pulitano, Cornelius, Slaide, Crawford, Anicette, Paschall, Ortiz Jr., Wilson, Ferrara, Divincenzo Jr. & Green

7. Court Access II - against Martinez/Plaza, Cuevas, Dudley, Pulitano, Cornelius, Sorrel, Ortiz Jr. & Green

8. Unreasonable Search and Seizure - against Green, Bivona, Ferrara, Sorrel

9. Legal Malpractice - against Sorrel

10. Tort Action - against Martinez/Plaza, Slaide, Cassidy, Da Byrd, Lewis & Novak

Additionally, recognizing the need to liberally construe pro se pleadings, I have incorporated into the discussion certain other potential claims that are suggested by the allegations.

A. Deborah Martinez/Plaza

1. Factual Allegations

Martinez/Plaza is employed in the “Ombudsman's Office” at ECCF. (See DE 1 at 2). She allegedly impeded, impaired, or frustrated Plaintiff's access to the courts. (See Id. at 3). This resulted in the termination of a notice of removal based on noncompliance with an unspecified technical requirement. (See Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges that Martinez/Plaza also refused to provide him legal materials such as “packets, law books, manila envelopes, certified mail services, folders, print paper, notebooks, pens, physical copies of grievances and requests, medical records[.]” (Id. at 6). Additionally, Martinez/Plaza failed to provide him a “notice of claim” form, thus denying him legal assistance or materials necessary to commencement of a lawsuit. (See Id. at 4). That lawsuit would have involved a claim of assault that occurred on November 17, 2015. (See Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff's family called Martinez/Plaza's supervisor, Defendant Virginia Dudley, to resolve these issues. Nevertheless, issues remained unresolved. (See id.). Plaintiff also alleges Martinez/Plaza retaliated against him in the following ways:

a) Not allowing Plaintiff into her office after he asked her for court access legal materials and to make a legal call. (See Id. at 6-7).

b) Not receiving legal assistance

c) Tampering with grievances

d) Unreasonable restrictions for law library access (Plaintiff states he made this known to Warden Green through several letters.) (See Id. at 13).

e) Firing Plaintiff from his role as legal representative on the cell block. (See Id. at 18).

f) Failing to provide Plaintiff with a notary. (See Id. at 15).

Plaintiff also states Martinez/Plaza infringed his property rights. Plaintiff states that half of his legal and personal property was thrown away when he was transferred to another facility in October and November 2017. (See Id. at 13-14).

Plaintiff further alludes to Martinez/Plaza's “class-based discrimination.” She purportedly acted with deliberate indifference by depriving Plaintiff of health and safety. (See id. at 17). Plaintiff also alleges that Martinez/Plaza deprived him of equal protection when she deprived him of “legal supplies, notary, legal calls for attorney/client and case investigative matters, privacy to discuss legal issues with attorney, right to proceed pro se [and to] retrieve medical records.” (See Id. at 19).

In refusing Plaintiff legal assistance and denying him help in providing medical records, Martinez/Plaza purportedly engaged in a custom, policy, or practice of committing constitutional violations against him. (See Id. at 19).

Finally, Martinez/Plaza purportedly delayed and or denied Plaintiff's access to information regarding grievances and available remedies on several occasions in 2018. (See Id. at 20).

2. Discussion

Plaintiff's allegations against Martinez/Plaza suggest five possible federal claims: (1) access to courts; (2) retaliation; (3) loss of property; (4) equal protection; and (5) deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. For the reasons discussed infra, only Plaintiff's federal retaliation claim shall proceed.

i. Access to Courts

“Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, prisoners...