ALLAH v. OCEAN COUNTY JAIL et al, No. 3:2006cv02181 - Document 2 (D.N.J. 2006)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION, Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 5/19/06 (DH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ALLAH v. OCEAN COUNTY JAIL et al Doc. 2 Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH Document 2 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 1 of 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SHAQUILL ALLAH, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : Civil Action No. 06-2181 (MLC) MEMORANDUM OPINION APPEARANCES: SHAQUILL ALLAH, Plaintiff pro se # C2184 Ocean County Jail 120 Hooper Avenue, Toms River, New Jersey 08754 COOPER, District Judge Plaintiff Shaquill Allah ( Allah ), confined at the Ocean County Jail in Toms River, New Jersey, seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Based on his affidavit of indigence and the absence of three qualifying dismissals within 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court will grant plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and order the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint. The Court must review the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. For the Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH Document 2 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 2 of 10 reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. I. BACKGROUND Allah brings his civil rights action against the Ocean County Jail and Lt. Dey, Head of the Classification Department. Allah appears to be a pretrial detainee pending ongoing state criminal proceedings. He alleges that his conditions of confinement violate his constitutional rights. He also claims that he has been denied recreation at the jail. First, Allah generally complains that he has been forced to share a two-person cell with two other inmates since April 21, 2006. The third inmate, not plaintiff, currently sleeps on a mattress on the floor. In addition, plaintiff was denied access to outside recreation on April 25, 2006 because he is currently placed in a segregated unit (since April 20, 2006). Allah seeks injunctive relief to remedy his overcrowded living conditions at the Ocean County Jail. He also seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the emotional distress caused by these conditions. II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL The Prison Litigation Reform Act ( PLRA ) requires a district court to review a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. The Court must identify cognizable claims and sua sponte dismiss any claim that is 2 Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH Document 2 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 3 of 10 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.1 immune from such relief. In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). The Court must accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). The Court need not, however, credit a pro se plaintiff s bald assertions or legal conclusions. Id. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (interpreting the predecessor of § 1915(e)(2), the former § 1915(d)). The standard for evaluating whether a 1 Plaintiff should also be aware that the PLRA requires Courts to determine whether a prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in federal court that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. If so, the prisoner is precluded from bringing an action in forma pauperis unless he or she is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It appears that plaintiff has filed one lawsuit which was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. See Allah v. Dalton, et al., Civil No. 05-2044 (MLC). 3 Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH Document 2 Filed 05/19/2006 complaint is frivolous is an objective one. Page 4 of 10 Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (3d Cir. 1995). A pro se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines, 404 U.S. at 521 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981). However, where a complaint can be remedied by an amendment, a district court may not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, but must permit the amendment. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992); Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004)(complaint that satisfied notice pleading requirement that it contain short, plain statement of the claim but lacked sufficient detail to function as a guide to discovery was not required to be dismissed for failure to state a claim; district court should permit a curative amendment before dismissing a complaint, unless an amendment would be futile or inequitable); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir. 2000) (dismissal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)); Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dep t, 91 F.3d 451, 453 (3d Cir. 1996). III. SECTION 1983 ACTIONS Allah brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights guaranteed under the 4 Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH Document 2 United States Constitution. Filed 05/19/2006 Page 5 of 10 Section 1983 provides in relevant part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ... 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 ... . 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Piecknick v. Pa., 36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56 (3d Cir. 1994). Here, the claims asserted against the Ocean County Jail are subject to dismissal because jail facilities are not persons for purposes of § 1983 liability. See Grabow v. S. State Corr. Fac., 726 F. Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J. 1989); Mitchell v. Chester County Farms Prison, 426 F.Supp. 271, 274 (E.D. Pa. 1976). Thus, the Complaint will be dismissed as against this defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). IV. A. ANALYSIS Due Process Conditions-of-Confinement Claim A liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from either of two sources: 5 the Due Process Clause itself Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH or State law. Document 2 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 6 of 10 (3d Cir. 1999). See Asquith v. Dep t of Corrs., 186 F.3d 407, 409 Pretrial detainees retain liberty interests firmly grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2000). See Fuentes v. Wagner, 206 F.3d 335, 341 n.9 (3d Cir. Analysis of whether such a detainee has been deprived of liberty without due process is governed by the standards set out by the Supreme Court in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Fuentes, 206 F.3d at 341-42. In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention that implicate only the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, we think that the proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee. For under the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. ... Not every disability imposed during pretrial detention amounts to punishment in the constitutional sense, however. Once the government has exercised its conceded authority to detain a person pending trial, it obviously is entitled to employ devices that are calculated to effectuate this detention. ... A court must decide whether the disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate governmental purpose. Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of detention facility officials, that determination generally will turn on whether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned [to it]. Thus, if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to punishment. Conversely, if a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate 6 Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH Document 2 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 7 of 10 goal--if it is arbitrary or purposeless--a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees. ... 441 U.S. at 535-39 (citations omitted). The Court further explained that the government has legitimate interests that stem from its need to maintain security and order at the detention facility. Restraints that are reasonably related to the institution s interest in maintaining jail security do not, without more, constitute unconstitutional punishment, even if they are discomforting and are restrictions that the detainee would not have experienced had he been released while awaiting trial. 441 U.S. at 540. Retribution and deterrence, however, are not legitimate nonpunitive governmental objectives. at 539 n.20. 441 U.S. Nor are grossly exaggerated responses to genuine security considerations. Id. at 539 n.20, 561-62. In Bell, the Supreme Court held that double-bunking under the circumstances presented in that case did not constitute punishment, and therefore, did not violate the pretrial detainees due process rights. Id. at 541-43. The Court further noted that no due process violation occurred where pretrial detainees were detained for generally less than 60 days. However, the Court cautioned that: confining a given number of people in a given amount of space in such a manner as to cause them to endure genuine privation and hardship over an extended 7 Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH Document 2 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 8 of 10 period of time might raise serious questions under the Due Process Clause as to whether those conditions amounted to punishment. Id. at 542. Such circumstances of serious overcrowding in a county jail were presented in Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 (3d Cir. 1983). There, the Third Circuit established a two- part test in line with Bell: we must ask, first, whether any legitimate purposes are served by these conditions, and second, whether these conditions are rationally related to these purposes. In assessing whether the conditions are reasonably related to the assigned purposes, we must further inquire as to whether these conditions cause [inmates] to endure [such] genuine privations and hardship over an extended period of time, that the adverse conditions become excessive in relation to the purpose assigned to them. 713 F.2d at 992. Allah alleges that he has been forced to share a cell with two other inmates since April 21, 2006. He does not allege any genuine hardships or unconstitutional deprivations with respect to his overcrowded living conditions, except to generally say that he was denied access to outside recreation once since he was placed in the segregated unit in April. Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has been confined in an overcrowded cell for an extended period of time or subjected to serious deprivations and hardship. These allegations alone, without more, do not suggest an extreme deprivation of constitutional magnitude inflicted on plaintiff for the purpose of punishment without 8 Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH reason. Document 2 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 9 of 10 Thus, even if these allegations are true, it would not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim. B. Denial of Recreation Allah alleges that he has been denied outdoor recreation while he has been confined in the segregated unit since April 20, 2006. The denial of exercise or recreation can result in a constitutional violation. [M]eaningful recreation is extremely important to the psychological and physical well-being of the inmates. Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 1021, 1031 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979)); see also Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996) ( [d]eprivation of outdoor exercise violates the Eighth Amendment rights of inmates confined to continuous and long-term segregation ); Patterson v. Mintzes, 717 F.2d 284, 289 (6th Cir. 1983); Loe v. Wilkinson, 604 F. Supp. 130, 135 (M.D. Pa. 1984). However, the lack of exercise can only rise to a constitutional level where movement is denied and muscles are allowed to atrophy, [and] the health of the individual is threatened. Spain, 600 F.2d at 199. Thus, a constitutional violation will occur when the deprivation of exercise extends for a prolonged period of time and tangible physical harm resulting from the lack of exercise is demonstrated. 9 Case 3:06-cv-02181-MLC-JJH Document 2 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 10 of 10 Allah s claim will be examined under the Fourteenth Amendment standard as set forth in Bell, as he is a pretrial detainee. He has simply alleged that he was not permitted to have outdoor recreation one day since he was confined to the segregated unit in late April 2006. Plaintiff does not allege any harm or injury as a result of this limited loss of outdoor recreational time. There was no prolonged deprivation of a constitutional magnitude that would suggest that the action by defendant was intended to punish plaintiff, or it was an exaggerated response to genuine security considerations in a segregated unit. Therefore, this denial of recreation claim will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Complaint will be dismissed as against defendant, Ocean County Jail. Furthermore, the Complaint will be dismissed as against the remaining defendant, Lt. Dey, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1. An appropriate order and judgment follows. s/ Mary L. Cooper MARY L. COOPER United States District Judge 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
