Williams v. Ann Klein Forensic Ctr.

JONATHAN D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ANN KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 18-9606 (PGS) (DEA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

February 6, 2020

OPINION

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding with this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In July, 2019, this Court consolidated this action with the allegations plaintiff alleged in Civ. No. 19-8930. Therefore, this Court will analyze the allegations raised in both actions as if they were filed in one.¹

Previously, this Court granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Civ. No. 18-9606, ECF 3; Civ. No. 19-8930, ECF 4). Thereafter, counsel was appointed to represent plaintiff. (See No. 18-9606, ECF 5, 15, 16). Appointed counsel was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint on behalf of plaintiff. (See id., ECF 19). However, if no amended complaint was filed, this Court would proceed to screen plaintiff's original complaint. (See id.). Having not received a proposed amended complaint from plaintiff'sappointed counsel, this Court will now screen plaintiff's allegations in his original complaints filed in both actions that have been consolidated.

This Court must screen the allegations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A 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, plaintiff's action will be permitted to proceed in part. More specifically, as outlined below, plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendant Aguirre will be permitted to proceed. Additionally, plaintiff's retaliation claims against defendants Aguirre and Jenkins will be permitted to proceed. Finally, plaintiff's condition of confinement claim related to food (or lack thereof) will proceed against defendant Roth.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

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 prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. 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 F. App'x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F. App'x230, 232 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)); Courteau v. United States, 287 F. App'x 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). 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.² 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 ajudicial 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. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiff's allegations will be construed as true for purposes of this screening opinion.

Plaintiff names the following defendants in No. 18-9606: (1) Ann Klein Forensic Center; (2) Dr. Glenn Ferguson - Chief Executive Officer Ann Klein Forensic Center; (3) Dr. Moisey - Psychiatrist - Ann Klein Forensic Center; (4) Dr. Douglas Smith - Psychiatrist Ann Klein Forensic Center; (5) Dr. Paul - Psychiatrist Ann Klein Forensic Center; (6) Dr. Strathern - Psychologist Ann Klein Forensic Center; (7) Mercer County Prosecutor's Office; (8) Timothy Ward, Esq. - Mercer County Prosecutor's Office; (9) Angelo J. Onofri, Esq. - Top Prosecutor Mercer County Prosecutor's Office; (10) Judge Thomas Brown - Superior Court Judge; (11) Sergeant Giovani - Correctional Sergeant Mercer County Correctional Center; (12) Christopher Christie - Old Governor; (13) Mr. Aguirre - Medical Security Officer Ann Klein Forensic Center; (14) Paul R. Adezio - Former Record Custodian McDade Administrative Building; (15) John Doe # 1 - President of Homeware Video Visitation Services; (16) Jane Does 1-3 - Triage Nurses Mercer County Correctional Center; (17) S.A. Moon - Sergeant Law Enforcement Adjudicator Mercer County Correctional Center; (18) Almeen Jenkins - Medical Security Officer Ann Klein Forensic Center; and (19) Dr. Robert Roth - Psychiatrist Ann Klein ForensicCenter. In addition to these defendants that plaintiff expressly names, this Court also construes plaintiff as attempting to bring a claim against his deputy public defender, Jessica Lyons, based on allegations in the body of the complaint.

In No. 19-8930, plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Ann Klein Forensic Center; (2) D. Kessler, CEO; (3) Dr. Robert Roth; (4) K. Green (M.S.O.); (5) L. Hargis (M.S.O.); (6) Dr. Darivsz Chacinski; (7) Justyna Oberschmidt; (8) Silas Odaa; (9) Dr. Singh; and (10) Dr. Ricardo Grippaldi. In addition to these defendants, this Court also construes the complaint as attempting to bring a claim against H. Pica based on allegations in the body of the complaint.

While plaintiff's allegations are not always the definition of clarity, plaintiff appears to be bringing claims arising from his detainment at both the Mercer County Correctional Center ("MCCC") as well as the Ann Klein Forensic Center ("AKFC").

1. AKFC

Plaintiff seeks to sue AKFC. However, AKFC is not a "person" amenable to suit under Section 1983. See Walker v. Cty. of Gloucester, No. 15-7073, 2018 WL 1064210, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2018) (collecting cases and stating that County Correctional Facility is not a "person" under Section 1983); see also Boomer v. Lewis, 541 F. App'x 186, 192 (3d Cir. 2013). Accordingly, plaintiff's claims against this defendant will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. Dr. Paul and Sergeant Giovani

Dr. Paul is a psychologist who works at AFKC. (See No. 18-9606, ECF 1 at 8). Dr. Paul apparently came to evaluate plaintiff while he was incarcerated at MCCC. (See id. at 13). Dr. Paul stood by plaintiff's door. (See id.). Plaintiff was nude sitting on his toilet. (See id.). Plaintiffstates Dr. Paul was there to conduct an evaluation of him. (See id.) Plaintiff asked Dr. Paul to leave numerous times. (See id.) Dr. Paul eventually did so. (See id.).

Plaintiff asserts that Sergeant Giovani, a correctional sergeant at MCCC, knew that plaintiff was not dressed when she permitted Dr. Paul to begin his evaluation. (See id. at 10, 25). Plaintiff also states that Giovani purportedly entered false reports against plaintiff into his record. (See id. 26). He states that these false reports directly related to plaintiff being pushed down a flight of stairs as Giovani was escorting plaintiff from a clinic area in MCCC. (See id.).

Pretrial detainees have a right to bodily privacy consistent with the security needs of a prison. See Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2017); O'dell'bey v. Semple, No. 19-304, 2020 WL 127698, at *7 (D. Conn. Jan. 10, 2020). In the context of allegations regarding viewing plaintiff on the toilet, courts typically look to whether incident(s) were regular/frequent and how close the viewing was in determining whether a...