Watkins v. Merriel

JESSE WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. MARVIN MERRIEL, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12-4851 (FLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

September 29, 2015

OPINION

WOLFSON, United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment at to Plaintiff's Section 1983 and state law claims arising from allegations that he fell and injured himself when two correctional officers ordered him to get up from his wheelchair and walk through a metal detector at New Jersey State Prison. Plaintiff also alleges that the supervisor stationed at Booth 1-E refused to provide him with emergency medical treatment after he fell; that one of the correctional officers began retaliating against him after he filed the instant suit; and that the Commissioner of NJDOC failed to implement policies and training that would have prevented the incident. Among other arguments, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the conduct giving rise to his section 1983 claims. As explained in this Opinion, exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") is an issue of law to be decided by the Court even where there are disputed issues of fact. Because the Court finds there are disputed issues of fact that preclude summary judgment on the exhaustion issues, it will deny summary judgment on the exhaustion issue and hold a hearing to determine whether Plaintiff sufficiently exhausted his administrativeremedies. The Court will defer ruling on Defendants' other arguments for dismissal and summary judgment in light of its decision to hold a hearing to resolve Defendants' exhaustion defense(s).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹

The Court recounts only the facts necessary to Defendants' exhaustion defense and explains the relevant evidence in more detail in the appropriate analysis sections of the Opinion. On December 4, 2011, the date of the incident in question, Plaintiff Jesse Watkins was incarcerated at New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP") in Trenton, New Jersey. (Declaration of Linda Santoro ("Santoro Decl.") at ¶ 2.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff was cleared to use a wheelchair prior to that date. On July 14, 2011, Dr. Abu Ahsan authored a note for Plaintiff stating "level 1, WC transport." (See July 14, 2011 Referral Form, Lustberg Decl., Ex. S.) Dr. Ahsan also authored a medical note on October 14, 2011, which stated that Plaintiff was "unable to stand or walk without support due to medical condition." (See October 14, 2011 Test Form, Lustberg Decl., Ex. T.)

According to Plaintiff, Defendants Merriel and Logan, two correctional officers at NJSP, ordered Plaintiff to "stand and walk" through the metal detector at the 1-E Booth, over his objections, and despite the fact that he referenced a medical note. (See DSUMF ¶ 9; see also Deposition of Wilbert Brown ("Brown Dep."), Lustberg Decl., Ex. U at 29:16-31.) Defendant Logan testified that both he and Defendant Merriel knew Plaintiff to use a wheelchair from past experience, and that Plaintiff referenced his medical pass on the day of the incident. (See Dep. of Gary Logan (Logan Dep.), Lustberg Decl., Ex. R at 32:3-33:17; 36:16-38:8.) Plaintiff hasoffered testimony to suggest that if he refused Merriel's and Logan's order, he faced potential lockup. (See Logan Dep., Lustberg Decl., Ex. R at 43:25-44:11.) When Plaintiff attempted to comply with the Defendants' order, he fell into the metal detector. (See Deposition of Officer Douglas Tubby ("Tubby Dep."), Lustberg Decl., Ex. V at 27:20-28:1; 60:15-61:25.)

It is undisputed that Defendant Rokeach, Merriel's and Logan's supervisor,² was not present at the 1-E Booth during the incident on December 4, 2011 (see Logan Dep., Lustberg Decl., Ex. R at 51:23-52:6) and returned to the 1-E Booth after Plaintiff had fallen. (Pl. Dep. Tr. 64:12-21.) Plaintiff alleges, however, that Defendant Rokeach refused to call for emergency medical treatment, known as a "Code 53." (See Rokeach Dep. at 15:12-20.)

Finally, Plaintiff contends in his Amended Complaint, that "[s]ince [the filing of the instant lawsuit on] August 3, 2012, Defendant Merriel has threatened and continues to threaten [Plaintiff]. These threats are direct responses to [Plaintiff's] Complaint." (Am. Compl. at ¶ 50.) Plaintiff also contends that "Defendant Merriel's threats, which concern Mr. Watkins' safety and security, are retaliatory in nature and specifically designed to deter Mr. Watkins from exercising his First Amendment rights." (Id. at ¶ 51.)

a. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

NJSP has a formalized review process for use by inmates in making requests and submitting grievances known as the Inmate Remedy Form System ("IRF System"). As explained in the Declaration of James Dutch, the Department-wide Inmate Grievance Coordinator for the NJDOC, "[t]he Inmate Grievance and Tracking Program utilizes a form document, referred to as an Inmate Remedy System Form ("IRF"), which is the same form usedat each of the DOC's thirteen prisons."³ (Dutch Decl. at ¶ 7.) It is undisputed that NJSP's Inmate Handbook outlines the process for submitting an IRF and appealing an adverse determination. (See DSUMF at ¶ 17; Pl. RSUMF at ¶ 17.) It also appears undisputed that Plaintiff was aware of the process for filing IRFs and had used the process to resolve grievances before and after the incidents at issue here.

In his Declaration, Mr. Dutch acknowledges "[o]ther avenues through which inmates may occasionally raise complaints, including letters to administrators, the Office of the Commissioner, and the Ombudsman; or referral of an investigation to the Special Investigations Division, which does not report to prison administration but directly to the DOC's Central Office in Trenton." (Dutch Decl. at ¶ 5.) Mr. Dutch states that these avenues "do not guarantee that appropriate administration and staff at the particular prison are fully aware, or aware at all, of an inmate's grievance." (Id.)

i. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies for the December 4, 2011 Incident and the Acts of Retaliation by Defendant Merriel.

Plaintiff submitted an initial IRF, dated December 10, 2011, for the December 4, 2011 incident.⁴ (See IRF from Jesse Watkins, dated Dec. 10, 2014, Lustberg Decl., Ex. B; DSUMF at ¶ 22.) Plaintiff filed his initial IRF concerning Defendant Merriel's allegedly retaliatory conduct on July 11, 2012.⁵ (See IRF, dated July 11, 2012, Lustberg Decl., Ex. G.) Plaintiff did notreceive a response to this initial IRF until approximately four months later on November 30, 2012, which stated: "These allegations cannot be verified." (Id.)

The parties dispute whether Plaintiff appealed these initial IRF determinations. Defendants have submitted copies of all IRFs submitted by Plaintiff and processed by the Remedy Coordinator for the relevant incidents. Parts four and five of the December 10, 2011 IRF form and the July 11, 2012 form, which are designated for the inmate's appeal and the administrative decision on the appeal, are blank. (Lustberg Decl., Ex. C, G.) Defendants have also submitted the Declaration of Linda Santoro that explains that the IRFs identified (and presumably produced) by Defendants include properly submitted appeals by Plaintiff but do not include any initial IRFs or appeals that were improperly submitted by Plaintiff. (See Declaration of Linda Santoro ("Santoro Decl.") at ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff contends that he submitted appeals of the relevant IRFs from which he received a negative response from the NJDOC.⁶ Plaintiff does not submit his own declaration to support his position; instead, he attempts to support his contention through the Declaration of his attorney, Daniel J. McGrady, Esq. ("McGrady Decl."), which states as follows:

2. Plaintiff maintains that he submitted appeals for each and every Inmate Remedy System Form ("IRF") as to which he received a negative response from the Department of Corrections (the "DOC"). This includes his December 10, 2011IRF relating to the December 4, 2011 incident, as well his July 11, 2012 IRF relating to Defendant Merriel's retaliatory conduct. Since Plaintiff never received a response to his November 24, 2014 IRF, he obviously could not submit an appeal with respect to this form. According to Plaintiff, the DOC did not return copies of his appeals after he submitted them. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that he was not permitted to make copies of his appeals prior to submitting them. Therefore, Plaintiff does not have copies of many of the appeals that he filed, including appeals relating to his December 10, 2011 IRF and his July 11, 2012 IRF.⁷

(Id. at ¶ 2.)

The Inmate Remedy Form System Process outlined in the Inmate Handbook states that "[a]ppeals [of the initial IRF determination] "must be submitted using the yellow copy (copy returned to you) of the original IRSF101 form you submitted." (Inmate Handbook Excerpts, Santoro Decl., Ex. B.) The appeal must be also submitted within ten days of the date the initial response is returned to an inmate, and the Inmate Handbook states that "[a]ppeals submitted outside of stated time frame will not be accepted or processed." (See id.) In his Declaration, Mr. Dutch acknowledges that "[o]n occasion, IRFs that are processed and filed by the prison's RF/grievance coordinator are not returned to the inmate." (Dutch, Decl. at ¶ 8.) In such an instance, the Defendants contend that inmates are not precluded from submitting a follow-up IRF. (See id.; see also Santoro Decl. at ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff has submitted an IRF, dated June 30, 2011, in which Plaintiff states that he has "some concerns because I haven't received (any) responses back from numerous[] complaints since (April, May) . . . . I would really appreciate if I could finally receive a response because I'm complying with procedures and still seem to be being neglected." (IRF from Jesse Watkins,dated ...