RIKER v. CMS INC. et al, No. 2:2010cv01752 - Document 39 (D.N.J. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 12/22/11. (jd, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY HASSAN RIKER, Civil Action No. 10-1752 (CCC) Plaintiff, : V. CMS, INC., OPINION et al., Defendants. APPEARANCES: HASSAN RIKER, Plaintiff pq so 607056/SBI#9811 South Woods State Prison 215 Burlington Road South Bridgeton, New Jersey, 08302 SEAN ROBINS, ESQ. MARKS, O NEILL, O BRIEN & COURTNEY, Suite 300, Cooper River West 6981 North Park Drive Pennsauken, New Jersey 08109 Counsel for Defendant, CMS, Inc. PC SUSAN MARIE SCOTT, ESQ. OFFICE OF THE N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL R.J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Counsel for Remaining Defendants CECCI-lI, District Judge THIS MATTER defendants, New comes Jersey before the Department Transportation, Alexander, Dirks, Vessel, Complaint, to dismiss the Court of Jones, on the Corrections Lawson, pursuant Paul, to motion - of Central Rembert and Fed.R.Civ.P, 12(b) (6), and for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). (Docket entry no. 36) This matter is being considered on the papers defendant s motion. pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. For 78. set reasons the BACKGROUND On or about April 5, filed of Corrections Reddy; John Doe ( EJSP ); Sgt. Jones; ( NJDOC )- CTP ; Dr. Senior East Jersey John Doe Officer (Complaint, Nurse Alexander; 2009, ( SWSP ) he was the to 2009, single was Riker 1983, Prison State 4c, 4b, St. use Francis Medical Rhoda; Doe Jane all employed at and 2b-j) on or about September 2 transported from the South Woods supplies were lost, re-use ¶J Caption, Riker alleges that, In his Complaint, or 3, § John Doe Dircks; Sgt. John Doe Vessel; Sgt. John Doe Officer John Doe Rembert; and Sgt. John Doe Lawson, the EJSP. U.S.C. Elmira Kapchits; Dr. Narsimha Administrator at Paul, ( Riker ) the New Jersey Department Inc.; CMS, 42 to pursuant Complaint, rights civil a Hassan Riker plaintiff, 2010, against numerous defendants: to below, forth motion will be granted. defendants I. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to . Center, where State Prison his medical The loss of his medical supplies forced Riker catheters. taken to the On or medical about unit September at EJSP. 2 or He 3, was Plaintiff does not identify CTP , but it appears that it relates to plaintiff s transport from the South Woods State Prison to the 2009. Francis Medical Center on or about September 2, St. Defendants identify this defendant as the New Jersey Department of Central Transportation ( NJDOC-CTP ) Corrections - 2 Kapchits, but did not receive any medical supplies evaluated by Dr. He was given laxatives or suppositories but could not he needed. them use no was there because commode. handicap-accessible Consequently, Riker alleges that he became constipated and suffered severe pain and cramps. On or about September 6, in a and placed unit given a cell Riker was moved to the 2009, for his small too smaller wheelchair which caused his The next day, cell. Statement of Claims) (Compl., drag to plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Reddy, was He wheelchair. feet ACSU on the who told Riker that plaintiff could crawl to the toilet and put himself on it. Riker explained that he is a paraplegic. Riker constitutional Act Disabilities punishment, malice pains, and punitive pain and deliberate an seeks mental as negligence American with direct amount and cruel anguish (Compl., and discrimination. On August Lawson, 5, 2011, Paul, defendants, of in unusual caused by act results October 12, Rembert and Vessel, 2011, Court this ¶ of stomach 7). NJDOC-CTP, Alexander, Dirks, filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, and/or for summary judgment. On the unspecified for damages suffering, his under rights He . violated and inhumane treatment that resulted in unsanitary hygienic negligence, Jones, ( ADA ) and compensatory his and rights have defendants the that asserts (Docket entry no. 32). entered a text order administratively terminating any pending motions because the matter 3 The Order directed the had recently been reassigned to this Court. parties to re-file their motions and provide courtesy copies to the 2011, defendants re-filed their Accordingly, on October 14, Court. (Docket entry no. motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. 36) In motion, their defendants the that state a has EJSP grievance procedure designed to provide a direct and confidential route for inmates to make the administration aware of any problems or concerns and to allow the administration to remedy any problems (Declaration of Carol Farrell, in a timely and efficient manner. Coordinator Remedy Inmate Exhibit A at This 45). at EJSP, grievance August dated procedure is ¶ 2011, 5, made known 4, and available to all inmates at EJSP through the EJSP Inmate Handbook. (Farrell Decl., Pursuant to ¶j 2, the 4) EJSP Handbook, an inmate is to complete an Inmate Request System and Remedy Form and place it in a box marked (., at Inmate Request System and Remedy Forms Only. At 46) . holidays Completed forms are picked up daily, or emergencies. ¶ (., 6, Ex. days of receipt of the response. (Id., 5; Ex. except on weekends, at 46). After an an inmate may appeal the administrative staff response is received, staff decision by completing Part IV of A ¶ the Remedy Form within 10 ¶ 7, Ex. A at 47). The EJSP Administrator or designee renders a final agency decision on 4 the administrative appeal, and the inmate s administrative remedies (I., ¶ 8, Ex. A at 48) are then exhausted. Defendants allege that Riker filed administrative remedy forms regarding his alleged assignment to a cell that was not handicapped but accessible, Riker never filed any responses received to his remedy forms. Therefore, administrative appeals to (., ¶J 9, 10; Ex. B). defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion filed by defendants. Accordingly, because Riker has not submitted a responsive statement of material facts II. A. dispute, (Docket entry no. defendants, L.Civ.R. in material the facts asserted by shall be deemed undisputed. 36-2), 56.1(a). DISCUSSION Standard on Motion to Dismiss On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6), the Court is required to accept as true all allegations in the Complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and to view favorable to the non-moving party. U.S. Ati. , Corp. L.Ed.2d 929 F.3d 1380, 129 S.Ct. v. 1937, Twomblv, 550 U.S. (3d Cir. 1994) 544, Levin, e.g., 555, 5 light Ashcroft v. 127 most Ibal, (2009); Bell S.Ct. 1955, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, A complaint . the 173 L.Ed.2d 868 1949-50, (2007) ; Oshiver v. 1384 See, in them 167 38 should be dismissed only if the alleged facts, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. Iqbal, fail to state a claim. taken as true, The question is whether the claimant can prove any set of facts consistent with his or her allegations that entitle him or her to relief, will ultimately prevail. (3d Cir. Semerenko, Forbes v. denied, 223 F.3d 165, Cendant Corp., Semerenko v. cert. 2000), not whether that person will 531 U.S. 173 1149 (2001) the Supreme Court revised the standard for summary In Iqbal, dismissal of a Complaint that fails to state a claim. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Iqbal s civil rights complaint decisions discriminatory detention Detention violated his constitutional rights. Center which, in during treatment Iqbal s regarding Metropolitan the at involvement personal defendants alleged adequately true, if The Court examined Rule Id. 8 (a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that a complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim 8(a) (2) the pleader Citing its that showing ¢2 is entitled to opinion recent relief. in Fed.R.Civ.P. Twombly, for the proposition that [a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic will not do, recitation of Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. the elements at 1949 of a cause (quoting Twombly, of action 550 U.S. 2 Rule 8(d) (1) provides that [e]ach allegation must be simple, No technical form is required. Fed.R.Civ.P. concise, and direct. 8 (d) 6 at 555) Court Supreme the , identified two principles working underlying the failure to state a claim standard: First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause conclusions. of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not does not unlock the doors of Rule 8 suffice discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible Determining claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to the infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, complaint has alleged-but it has not show[nl - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a) (2). . ¢ Igbal, . . . . . . . . 129 S.Ct. at 1949-1950 (citations omitted) The Court further explained that a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should they whether then determine their veracity and assume plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. Thus, now allege facially at 1950. to prevent a summary dismissal, sufficient plausible. reasonable inference misconduct alleged. factual This then that matter the . at 1948. allows co civil complaints must show the defendant that claim is to draw the liable for the court is a The Supreme Court s ruling in qbal emphasizes that a must plaintiff demonstrate allegations of his complaint are plausible. also Twombly, F.3d 203, 505 U.S. at 555, 210(3d Cir. Consequently, the Third Circuit observed that set forth Conley v. Gibson, 355 no set of U.S. 41, applied to federal complaints before Twombly. The conduct Third Circuit now requires the two-part 1949-50; the see 578 2009) final nail-in-the-coffin for the 210. at & n.3; Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, the in Id. that analysis set that forth in Iqbal provides facts 45-46 (l957), Fowler, a district Iqbal standard that 578 F.3d at court must when presented with a motion to dismiss: First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be the all of The District Court must accept separated. complaint s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any Second, a legal conclusions. [Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50J. District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has In other words, a a plausible claim for relief. [.] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff s entitlement A complaint has to show such an entitlement with to relief. As the Supreme See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234-35. its facts. Court instructed in Iqbal, [w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not show Iqbal, [129 [n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief. This plausibility determination will be S.Ct. at 1949-50] . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. . In Conley, as stated above, a district court was permitted to summarily dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only if it appear[ed] beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Under this no set of facts standard, a Id., 355 U.S. at 45-46. complaint could effectively survive a motion to dismiss so long as it contained a bare recitation of the claim s legal elements. 8 578 F.3d at 210-211. Fowler, Thus, 12 (b) (6) for it , a complaint Rule under dismissal survive to accepted as must contain sufficient factual matter, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. true, Icibal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 determining the sufficiency of a complaint, at U.S. 550 (citing Twombly, 570) . In the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Phillips v. 2008) . But, 234 F.3d 224, 515 County of Allegheny, (3d Cir. the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the in inapplicable is complaint a to legal allegations contained conclusions [;] [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, Igbal, 129 do not suffice. supported by mere conclusory statements, plaintiff s S.Ct. claims, at generally a court looks evaluating in Additionally, 1949. to only the a facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments without reference to Jordan v. other parts of the record. Frankel, B. 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. Fox, Rothschild, O Brien & 1994) Summary Judgment Standard show that there is no A party seeking summary judgment must genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. also Celotex Corp. Inc. v. Miramax v. Film Catrett, Corp., 477 79 U.S. F.3d 9 Fed.R.Civ.P. 317, 1358, 322 1366 56(c); (1986) ; (3d Cir. Orson, 1996) denied, cert. 1988) , Co., 789 1098 490 U.S. (3d Cir. 232 F.2d 230, 860 F.2d 1209, Co., Healy v. New York Life Ins. (3d Cir. Allen Prods. threshold inquiry is The . 3 n. Hersh v. (1989) ; 1986) 1219, whether there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved 477 Inc., favor in of 242, U.S. fact because they may reasonably be finder of resolved only by a for issue no that (1986) (noting 250 Liberty Lobby, Anderson v. either party. trial exists unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict in its whether issues triable the exist, fact of favor) Court In deciding . must the view underlying facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Corp., 475 63 Babbitt, Schaeffer, 587 574, U.S. F.3d 231, (1986) ; 236 811 F.2d 225, Rule 56(e) Indus. See Matsushita Elec. (3d Cir. 231 Pennsylvania 1995); Cir. (3d Co. Zenith Radio v. Ass n Hancock v. Indus. Coal v. 1987) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part: When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party s pleading, or as affidavits by response, party s adverse the but in this rule, must set forth specific facts otherwise provided If the showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. if summary judgment, adverse party does not so respond, appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. Fed.R.Civ.P. party s 56(e). ultimate determination of The burden whether rule does proof of a given 10 increase not on a claim. factual or decrease Rather, dispute a the requires submission to a jury must be guided by the substantive evidentiary a movant must be awarded summary judgment on Under the Rule, all supported properly at 255. 477 U.S. Anderson, standards that apply to the case. its in identified issues except motion, those for which the nonmoving party has provided evidence to show 324. its Put another way, once the moving party has properly supported judgment as a matter of supplemented be or interrogatories, opponent . . than simply Id. show metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. at 586 (citations omitted) ; n. there that Matsushita, see also Anderson, (stating that [bly its very terms, 322 at to which to answers depositions, by . affidavits, further more do must with affidavits, for example, law, an entitlement fact and of issue of showing of no triable may 477 U.S. at See Celotex, that a question of material fact remains. 3, its is some 475 U.S. at 247 48 477 U.S. this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement that is there be no genuine issue of material fact. ) What the nonmoving party must do is and by [its] own affidavits, or by the go beyond the pleadings depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that U.S. at 324; there see is a genuine also Luian v. issue for trial. National Wildlife 11 Celotex, Fed n, 477 497 U.S. 871, to 888 (1990) (stating that replace conclusory allegations conclusory allegations of 249; Big Apple BMW, Inc. 1363 (3d Cir. of v. BMW of N. denied,507 U.S. Inc., 912 raise a genuine issue of material fact, [tb not match, item for item, ] . . with . 477 U.S. 974 at F.2d 1358, (1993) (stating that . . the opponent need . each piece of evidence proffered by the movant, but must exceed[ offer[ complaint Anderson, Am., is not [Rule 56(e)) the an affidavit. ); cert. 1992), [t]he object of I the mere scintilla threshold and . a genuine issue of material fact. ) The Local Civil Rules supplement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provide which sets that forth material each side L. Civ. R. 56.1. single joint Rule 56.1 statement is favored. Jersey Federal Practice Rules 192 Where a joint statement facts submitted in the is not furnish a statement to which there exists or does facts as not exist a genuine issue. shall (2006 ed.) prepared, Where possible, Allyn Z. Lite, (citations pursuant to omitted) Local Rule then, under the rule, statement of material facts which remain However, . 56,1 cannot the parties bind the Court . (citation omitted) The Complaint Contains Threadbare Allegations 12 at statements if evidence establishes that the stipulated facts are in error. C. New (citations omitted) uncontested by the opposing party are deemed admitted. 193 a other Id. Relying on Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1944, 1952, defendants first argue that the Complaint should be dismissed because it contains only threadbare allegations and conclusory statements that are not entitled to an assumption of truth. First, to as defendant, NJDOC-CTP, the Complaint simply alleges that Riker was transported from SWSP to the hospital, where his medical supplies were lost. There wrongful conduct level of a constitutional violation. against this defendant asserting a claim of negligence, 1983. are allegations would that At best, rise to of the plaintiff may be which is not cognizable under § There are no allegations that would support a claim under the ADA. Consequently, entirety, as against defendant NJDOC-CTP, claim, the Complaint must be pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Next, the Complaint Jones, needs. alleges As to defendant Rembert, its that defendants Dircks, Alexander and Lawson neglected plaintiff s special these allegations conclusory statements truth. in for failure to state a Riker simply pleads that Rembert denied plaintiff assistance and medication. stated, dismissed, 12(b) (6). merely Vessel, As no Accordingly, are nothing (Compl., at more than ¶J 2.i) threadbare, that are not entitled to the assumption of the Complaint will be dismissed in its entirety as against these named defendants for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed,R.Civ.P. Similarly, alleges that as Riker to 12(b) (6) Administrator filed several 13 * Paul, remedies the Complaint and verbal merely complaints with Paul, and that Paul was aware of plaintiff s special needs but failed to act pursuant to prison protocol. ¶ (Compl., 2.b). Both plaintiff and defendants attach the several remedy forms to the Complaint and motion to dismiss, total of three received immediate September 14, showed that accommodate third and remedy forms, was [plaintiff s] remedy requested plaintiff s wheelchair accessible response Based on sufficient Riker s few days remedy apart, form was which dated in the needs. form was transfer process making of changes to (Farrell Decl., at Ex. B). The dated 28, 2009, and that has October another to facilities and was facility cells. The defendant s transferred to SWSP on or 2009. these facts first that plaintiff indicated about November 19, The There were a The second was dated September 17, 2009, which defendant last filed only a response. 2009. respectively. allegations, that constitutional the Complaint plausibly demonstrates rights. They are fails that to Paul simply contain violated conclusory statements containing nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the bare elements of a constitutional claim. at 1951. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. The allegations utterly fail to support a claim that Paul was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff s special medical needs. Therefore, Fed.R.Civ.P. the Complaint 12(b) (6), must be dismissed, for failure to state a claim. pursuant to Because the Complaint fails to set forth sufficient facts to support a claim of a constitutional deprivation or a violation of plaintiff s rights 14 under the ADA, arguments the Court need not address the defendants remaining regarding Eleventh Amendment exhaust administrative remedies, immunity failure to as they are now rendered moot by dismissal of the action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. III. or 12(b) (6). CONCLUSION Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, defendants motion to dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6) for action summary dismissed NJDOC Jones; claim judgment in its will be granted, entirety with respect CTP; Administrator Paul; - Sgts. and to which relief may be the Dircks, and Officers Alexander and Rembert, upon this granted. and/or will named defendants, Vessel, Lawson and for failure to state a An appropriate order follows. CLAIRE C. United States District Judge Dated: December 22, 2011 15 be
]]>
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.
