ALLAH v. BARTKOWSKI et al, No. 3:2011cv03153 - Document 92 (D.N.J. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 4/21/2016. (km)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ALLAH v. BARTKOWSKI et al j Doc. 92 1' **NOT FOR PUBLICATION** UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY . ' JUSTICE RASIDEEN ALLAH, Civil Action No. 11-3153 (MAS) (TJB) Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION v; GREG BARTKOWSKI, et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on a civil Complaint by Plaintiff Justice Rasideen Allah pursuanLtQ 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights have been violated by .' Defendants due fo. his placement in the Management Control Unit e'MCU"). 1 Plaintiff asserts both Eighth Amendment claims regarding his conditions of confinement while in the MCU, as , WYll as Fourteenth Amendment due process claims regarding his initial placement, and the ' . i ) Jj subsequent decision to keep him, in the MCU. Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss by Defendants (the "Motions"), (ECF Nos. 81 & 83), raising substantially identical ar$Ulllents for dismissal. It appearing: . J. · The Court previously dismissed all claims with prejudice upon its sua sponte screening pursilant to28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), finding that the Complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be gra.11.ted, and that amendment would be futile. (See Memo. Op. 8, Nov. 8, 2012, ECF MCU is a. close custody unit to which an inmate may be assigned if the inmate "poses a substantial threat to the safety of others; of damage to or destruction of property; or of interrupting the operation of a State correctional facility." N.J. Admin. Code§ 10A:5-1.3 . .. Dockets.Justia.com No>8.) Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 10), which the Court denied, (Order, . JuJy 30, 2013, ECF.No. 13). \ ' ": ; 2.· ;Plaintiffappealed. (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 15.) The Third Circuit vacated this Court's '. ' ' .. '\ dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. (See Mandate, Aug. 11, 2014, ECF No. 20.J,. In \ts . . . to state:Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims regarding Plaintiffs r·: the Third Circuit found that (1) the Complaint alleged sufficient factual + in the,MCU, (see Op. 6-7, July 18, 2014, ECF No. 20-1), and (2) the Complaint ,··l· l alleged sufficientfactual allegations to state Fourteenth Amendment claims that the administrative hearings (placing and keeping Plaintiff in the MCU) were constitutionally defective, violating his ' '' : procedural due process rights, (id at 8-9). The Third Circuit noted, without deciding, that the state court's findings, 'in Plaintiffs appeals of the administrative decisions to place and keep Plaintiff in the MCU,_"may have'a preclusive effect on Allah's Fourteenth Amendment claims." (Id. at 9 n.3.) . 3. Upon remand, Defendants filed the instant Motions, contending that the Rooker-Feldman · ciJcfune this Court from adjudicating Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment claims. To ,.,,,': ,, 1 invoke the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Defendants must satisfy four requirements: "(l) the federal plaintiff in ·state cotut; (2) the plaintiff complains of injuries caused by the state-court judgments; (3) those judgments were rendered before the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff . . { ;.;t; : is . ""'.' ' :. -; l :: ..< j •. .-: " the district court to review and reject the state judgments." B.S. v. Somerset County, I 704 F.3d:2S0,'260 '(3d Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation omitted). "Rooker-Feldman ... is a 1 narrow doctrine, confined to cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by ">. ! ;· ; ' ·-; .. ' ;' ' . state:.court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting .; j ;'ii.:,·;, " ·1!, ., ( < I "' ! ; ··"·':' ., ;i· : disttjclcourt review and rejection of those judgments." Williams v. BASF Catalyst LLC, 765 F.3d ' -. "' l < k . 306, 315. (3:d Cir.:'2014) (quoting Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 464 (2006)). The doctrine 2 ·, .. '.,:, . • I ili;at "the fe9eral claim was actually litigated in state-court prior to the filing of the federal ·: . .. ;.·, ,, ...... '; ....... ' " 1 QI,ii .;. [that] the federal claim is inextricably intertwined with the state adjudication, meaning q·:;.: I ! ;: :'1J · ,, thatfederafrelie(can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state-court was wrong." Jonas • . ·f·- v. Gold, 6'27 F. ;\.pp'x 134, 137 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Knapper, 407 F.3d 573, 580 (3d Cir. ' . 2Q05)). "," ' ::·•"!, },?x:: ,.··, \ lirgue that the aforementioned state court decisions, affirming the initial and _ ,, .. : .".: I ''-I' i ' of Plaintiff in the MCU, "demonstrate[d] that Allah's claims in this federal ::,n: .' I case mirror the claims he already had an opportunity to litigate [in state court]", and as such, "Allah is • to. federal relief because there is no indication that the Appellate Division 'was '1-- · (pefs.' Br. 6-8, ECF No. 81-2.) The Court disagrees. The Court's review of both of the i ; state couh :decisioris ·reveals that, unsurprisingly, those decisions primarily dealt with whether Plaintiff was correctly placed and kept in MCU confinement. See Allah v. NJ. Dep 't of Corr.' ' ·2012 : >' *5 (N.J. Super. App. Div. June 21, 2012); Allah v. NJ. Dep't of Corr., 2008 } 1 .r'.·"·t· 0 . : WL«_2245'599, a(*3 (N.J. Super. App. Div., June 3, 2008). For example, in the latest appeal, the ;' i j appellate c9urt disposed of much of Plaintiffs claims regarding procedural defects by confining :· ,[ the appeal ·"to the ! '.:. !-- ' : .. . ' 24, 2011 final agency determination and the discrete issues that ·: emanate from thaf determination only." Allah, 2012 WL 2345390, at *4. ' : ::;{). Based on that ·. ' .;.·' · coiifinemetit, it held that"[a]s to appellant's rhetorical questions of 'first impression,' we do not ·. 1 1 .. '<.{ ' J' f; : !:.i ;,: provide advisory,opinions. We will address only specific issues raised by appellant relevant to this appeal." Id (internal citation omitted). What little review of procedural issues the state court dfd ; 7 ' concluded that the administrative hearings substantially complied with state ;·· i: J ' ' ',_;· \' ·Id; Allah, 2008 WL 2245599, at *3 ("We are additionally convinced that, in making 3 i.• the Department substantially complied with the regulations governing MCU ' i: : : !'. t ':: 'l ·;:i . '"'. 5. ' Third Circuit stated, here, Plaintiffs Fourteenth :; ' claims ' concern his procedural due process rights under federal law. In that regard, "the relevant inquiry ; is: what process' [plaintiff] received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly." '. \'.:: :; . ' :.:;· i :·:.! . , . S)ffi.rt}ioy/v. . '"_ . finding . 562 U.S. 216, 222 (2011). This Court is constrained by the Third Circuit's :.\"1 . ._ (:.<;>,mplaint has facially stated valid procedural due process claims based on .; c;'!·:r ' . . ' ' Plaintiffs extensive allegations of defects that occurred at his administrative hearings. (See Op. 8f:}µJy 1:8, .2014.) ;, What limited review the state court may have conducted on Plaintiffs ,: . i' . i ,_ ·'.:.:,t-:t;·::. ·,:;: ·-; ···- ') '.'. ! due :; , t,_, claims . claims were too narrow in scope to encompass the entirety of Plaintiffs 1 in ¢ourt.' See Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 (1980) (holding that procedural : ' process protection is "a matter of federal law, [and is] not diminished by the fact that the State 'hav{specitled jts own procedures that it may deem adequate"). In other words, a finding of , idhilify state s Fourteenth Amendment claims would not be logically inconsistent with the ' l ' the state court's determination, that Plaintiffs placemeb.t in the MCU was i proper, may have been entirely correct irrespective of the alleged procedural defects. As such, the · thatRooker-Feldman does not apply. 2 2 Defendants''. reliance on Barnes v. Domitrovich, 184 F. App'x 164 · (3d Cir. 2006) is inapplicable here. The Third Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal based on the RookerFeldman doctrine because it concluded that "Barnes' claims were either actually litigated in the and/or are so inextricably intertwined with the state court adjudication of his parental .rights'." 1d: at 166.. The Court does not reach that conclusion in this case. Similarly, Defendants' iJ;J. their briefs regarding preclusion are equally unpersuasive. The Court does not (HspufB'DefendarttS' ·assertion that "the Appellate Division considered the evidence and claims raised by· Allah. durhJ.g. both appeals, and found that his initial and continued confinement to the MCU was supported by substantial, credible evidence[.]" (Defs.' Reply 4, ECFNo. 88.) However, as stated this Court does not concern itself with the validity of Plaintiffs confinement in the MCU. The inquiry squarely before this Court is whether Plaintiff received adequate procedural 4 ' • · . · , , :: Jo ',the j, ,< "''. ·· " -.' : .. : """ ! , Defendants are arguing that the state court reviews served as separate · ,;; .. :'":: · procedural due process rights, independent of the administrative 'l •! hearings-. p .:··· cured any potential defects in those hearings-Defendants cite to no finds none, to support that argument. There is case law suggesting that a :'; . : qe navo :review might : :r · ·· ., a constitutionally defective administrative proceeding. See l);ep·'t ofAgric., 142 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 1998); Haskell v. U.S. Dep't ofAgric., 930 ':.:•·!{'' •;: : F .2d 816, 820 ( 1991 ). Here, however, as the state court pointed out in its ruling, Plaintiff I did not novo review at the state court level. See Allah, 2012 WL 2345390, at *5 ("The i' scope of OUJ:' review in an appeal from a final decision of a state administrative agency is strictly : limited.").· :'.This Court is bound by the Third Circuit's finding with regard to the administrative - .,, <!, ', hearings allegatidns·, and Plaintiffs limited review on appeal did not cure those alleged defects. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motions on the Fourteenth Amendment claims. i vr::f : · Firiruly, ,·i;..',j,' ; · ;·, '.· Greg Bartkowski and Michele R. Ricci move to dismiss all claims . ' I' ; ·',_ ·> . ' .'._ '.' tlielli, 'that those claims are impermissibly premised on a supervisory liability theory .. fo a§ 19S3:claim, "[g]overnment officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional <: - con9.uct of their subordinates[.]" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). "[A] plaintiff must 1 J' . ·::"·· :._ ',; ... -h each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has ":: : . H . . . . 1 . violated the Constifution." Id. While affirmative action by a supervisory official is not required acquiesced in the subordinate's unconstitutional conduct." Barkes v. First Corr. Med Inc., 766 ii ., ; '' . . ·.,1,·· : .• ' protectfon <;furirig' the' administrative hearings, regardless of outcome. As the Court finds above, the .have not been fully decided by the state court. If there ,are specific issues that Defendants' believe may be precluded from litigation in federal court, they may file the appropriate pretrial motions to limit the issues at trial. <;, 5 I I ; : ·;. t.:·; : , . -. 700.5) t of actual 9r. 2014) (rev'd on other grounds); see Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 ·: "¥. ' ' , - ·< • involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or :: '.. ·; t . cind acquiescence."). "[A]llegations [that] .... merely assert their involvement , , ' ' fi k ;: ;.. in the post-incident grievance process" are insufficient to establish liability. 4 ··, App'x 924, 925 (3d Cir. 2005). "Merely responding to or reviewing an inmate ·· : rise to the level of personal involvement necessary to allege an Eighth ·.:· ·' ·.· f i · .,: .; . Alexander v. )•, 4,oes -. · '.' .;. '. .,;li ...··iT ·<: Amendment deliberateindifference claim." Tenon v. Dreibelbis, 606 F. App'x 681, 688 (3d Cir. ··JT .. ( .. , " 2015) . :"\".a. ·, Hbwever, there is case law suggesting that repeated written complaints to a supervisory .' ' ; d.e:fencfuril .of an .ongoing constitutional violation may be sufficient to establish the deliberate ·. i:f;-. ,,·, r1 . , :.i indifference· by ,_, . evidence. See, e.g., Cardona v. Warden - MDC: Facility, No. 12- ·: + 1 7161, 2013 WL 6446999, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2013) (holding that plaintiff has stated a valid 1 ; cleniat;of'riiedicai services claim against the prison warden because plaintiff alleged an ongoing "'.:' )"• :.;!.:f' ;". \ i ' >>) : i "' {! ,.·. \ ,, : ccmstitut1pnftl violation, and alleged that the warden was made aware of the ongoing violation ' . ' 1 ' through Pa. .,. t... ' > ' I ;written requests); Carter v. Smith, No. 08-279, 2009 WL 3088428, at *6 (E.D. 23, 2009) ("Where a grievance alleges an ongoing constitutional violation, a supervisory >·, 1, ."·'+: ; l ' d,efe.ndanfwho reviews it is personally involved in that violation because he is confronted with a i '. n ; : . situation " . . can 'remedy directly.") (quoting Harnett v. Barr, 538 F. Supp. 2d 511, 524-25 (N.D.N.Y; ioo8')f cases require the plaintiff to establish an ongoing violation that can be remedied by the :supervisory official. Grievances of past violations will not do because the ' ; _; ·.,. :'- '. . ·"'·< '.\. ·.t" ;;v,._, ... ,,.,,_;,·. ; .:·L - lack thereof, would not have caused the plaintiff additional injury. See . ; <: .. Robinson No.· 08-2023, 2012 WL 1067909, at *10 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2012) (finding no . . . .. , .. L ;.;:;:,!r 1,,.,: ·; . · . , personal involvement when· a: supervisory official was made aware of a constitutional violation 1 6 . Carter, 2009 WL 3088428, at *6 (distinguishing allegations of ·; : •! - -• • ' ,; : ongoing ·-. - 9. from those that already occurred). ,; :_::. y·· ·;·<"j.'; ... ·:.zp ·-'t; details the numerous attempts by Plaintiff to notify Bartowski and ,' I Ricci ,of both his allegedly unconstitutional placement in the MCU and the deplorable conditions ,;· ,1: \ , ' . :'. '_,· -: __ :"' ' .'.::. ". '. " ' : '. ' '. >:'.·_(. ·; ·-· . ', ' '.. ,-:.'. .. ; 26-28, 31, 33, ECF No. 1.) Although Bartowski and Ricci were f'' J:!, · . , : alwaysJnvolved iri the grievance review process, Plaintiff nevertheless alleges that they at times ' ' " ' ·1 ·, '',·; . • ignored the in *e r -,•/ filed, and at other times simply passed over many of the arguments he made The Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs claims against Bartowski and Ricci are .. ' tile Qne hand, merely responding to grievances does not rise to the level of personal !.:.L,f··.:: : . . to state an Eighth Amendment violation, but on the other hand, deliberately ignoring by Plaintiff of an obvious ongoing violation, even during grievance review pfoyess, does suggest knowledge and acquiescence. At this stage of the case, the Court cannot say · : are facially meritless; indeed, ifBartowski and Ricci, in reviewing Plaintiffs ..,: , ;. ; ··: . . mtentiorially addressed some arguments but ignored others, that could potentially serve ., ' • ; j l'"'"""f .,. :·"' as circumstantiaj 'evidence showing they were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs due process rights, See Abrante v. Guarini, No. 12-6860, 2014 WL 5795596, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2014) · had sufficient stated a supervisory claim where "Defendants received and '. '. , read the :i,-. :: i · • T . ·general . f " ,! r ,t:f, ! :i . . . request forms he submitted on these issues, but ignored or discarded ·· . them, rejected· them without explanation, or inaccurately responded that [he] had refused treatment"). Plaintiff also alleges that his placement in the MCU may have been an act of . ' ,'.t._ . • (, -!·. i '"":. : ' ,:. ·,. " '-:: :- ' - '' , ruici because he assisted another inmate on legal matters, (id. at 12), which, if true, . 7 ";,' , for Ricci to intentionally ignore Plaintiff's grievances. 3 Tue Court •t ., ,J, ', _, " - - , - • ' finds· that· the Complaint has sufficiently alleged personal involvement by Bartowski and Ricci in depriving 'constitutional rights to survive dismissal, and therefore the Motions on these !llt!L# Michael A. Shiptif.S.D.J. Date: 3 The Court makes clear it does not find that Plaintiff has asserted an independent claim of retaliation. · Inmates cannot state claims of retaliations based on their assistance of other inmates in legal matters. :se'.e Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 225 (2001) (finding that "prisoners [do not] possess a First Amendment right to provide legal assistance [to other inmates] that enhances the other,wise ' • ;/e ,\j'.'. ;.,"t :; ':-'"'·'-: _, ·:: '.; ..... . l • 0 ! 8
]]>
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.
