Bailey v. State, Civil No. 01-1571 (JBS) (D. N.J. 2/28/2002)
| Decision Date | 28 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 01-1571 (JBS) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
| Parties | CHARLES BAILEY and WANDA BAILEY, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON, YARDVILLE CORRECTIONS CENTER a/k/a GARDEN STATE YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CENTRAL RECEPTION & ASSIGNMENT UNIT, STATE OF NEW JERSEY PAROLE BOARD, JOHN DOE(1-10), JOHN DOE ENTITIES (1-10), jointly, severally, individually or in the alternative, Defendants. |
Stephen M. Tatonetti, Esquire, Begelman & Orlow, P.C., Suite, Cherry Hill, NJ, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
David Samson, Attorney General of New Jersey, By: Todd D. Wachtel, Deputy Attorney General, Trenton, N.J., Attorney for Defendants.
Presently before this Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons discussed below, this Court will grant Defendants' motion and dismiss Plaintiff Wanda Bailey's loss of consortium claim based on a deprivation of her husband's federal civil rights with prejudice. Additionally, the Court will grant Defendants' motion as it applies to all other counts in Plaintiffs' Complaint, and the present state entities named as defendants are immune from suit, but the dismissal of these counts will be without prejudice to the naming of proper parties as defendants. Further, the Court grants Plaintiff Charles Bailey leave to file an Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Opinion and Order on those claims that are dismissed without prejudice.
Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Complaint contains various pleading defects which fail to meet the standards of federal law. First, Plaintiffs fail to identify Defendants who qualify as "persons" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Second, because ordinary negligence by prison officials is not cognizable under § 1983, Plaintiffs fail to identify a right of federal constitutional origin allegedly violated by Defendants. Third, Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim is unclear and not plead with sufficient specificity as to put Defendants on notice of the nature of such a claim as required by Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs' state law claims (counts 1-16, 25) fail to comply with New Jersey state law and the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiffs have failed to plead the following items which are required for recovery under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act: (1) that Charles Bailey sustained permanent injuries; (2) that notice was filed within 90 days of the incident; and (3) that public employees were acting outside the scope of their employment. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not named as a defendant to the state law counts an entity or individual that is not immune from a suit for damages in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.
Plaintiffs assert Charles Bailey was wrongfully imprisoned after a warrant for his arrest was mistakenly issued by New Jersey officials. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs raise a mix of state and federal claims. Plaintiffs, who are residents of Virginia, seek at least $75,000 of damages against the named Defendants, the State of New Jersey and several state entities and correction facilities. In addition, Plaintiffs raise numerous civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, jurisdiction by this Court is proper under both 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1343 (deprivation of a federal civil right).
The facts alleged are as follows.1 On October 2, 1998, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Eugene Austin, sentenced Plaintiff Charles Bailey ("Mr. Bailey") to serve a three-year sentence with a one-year parole ineligibility after he was indicted for a Controlled Dangerous Substance charge. (Compl., ¶ 29; Pls.' Opp. Br., at 3.) Because he received certain jail and gap time credits, Mr. Bailey served a 45-day home release sentence at his father's home in Willingboro, N.J. (Compl., ¶¶ 29-30; Pls.' Opp. Br., at 3.) Upon completion of this program, Mr. Bailey was placed on parole until October 2, 2000. (Pls.' Opp. Br., at 3.)
A few months after his release, Mr. Bailey, believing his parole obligations in New Jersey to be fulfilled, returned to his home state of Virginia. (Id. at 4.) Shortly after his leaving New Jersey, a fugitive warrant was apparently issued for Mr. Bailey's arrest. (Compl., ¶ 30.) Mr. Bailey was subsequently arrested on this warrant in Virginia and on October 25, 1999 was extradited to New Jersey where he remained incarcerated until December 10, 1999. (Id.)
Plaintiffs filed a twenty-five count Complaint on April 4, 2001 against the State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Corrections, various prison facilities within the State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Parole Board, and unnamed individuals and entities. The Complaint alleges violations of Mr. Bailey's civil and constitutional rights, state law claims, and loss of consortium by his wife, Plaintiff Wanda Bailey ("Mrs. Bailey"). Specifically, Plaintiffs charge the following claims: gross negligence (Counts 1-8); false imprisonment (Counts 9-16); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights violations (Counts 17-24); and loss of consortium (Count 25).
On July 11, 2001, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted must be denied "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). A district court must accept any and all reasonable inferences derived from those facts. Unger v. Nat'l Residents Corp. v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 761 F. Supp. 1100, 1107 (D.N.J. 1991); Gutman v. Howard Sav. Bank, 748 F. Supp. 254, 260 (D.N.J. 1990). Further, the court must view all allegations in the Complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994).
It is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead evidence, and it is not necessary to plead the facts that serve as the basis for the claim. Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 561 F.2d 434, 446 (3d Cir. 1977); In re Midlantic Corp. Shareholder Litigation, 758 F. Supp. 226, 230 (D.N.J. 1990). The question before the court is not whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail; rather, it is whether they can prove any set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle them to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). "Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set forth an intricately detailed description of the asserted basis for relief, they do require that the pleadings give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 150 n.3 (1984) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Therefore, in deciding a motion to dismiss, a court should look to the face of the complaint and decide whether, taking all of the allegations of fact as true and construing them in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, plaintiff's allegations state a legal claim. Markowitz, 906 F.2d at 103. Only the allegations in the complaint, matters of public record, orders, and exhibits attached to the complaint matter, are taken into consideration. Chester County Intermediate Unit v. Pennsylvania Blue Shield, 896 F.2d 808, 812 (3d Cir. 1990).
Under the specificity standard of Rule 8(a), a pleading must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the court's jurisdiction: (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing plaintiff is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A cause of action brought under § 1983 is not subject to heightened pleading requirements; rather all that is required under Rule 8 is a short and plain statement of the claim. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 167 (1993).
A complaint must not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond reasonable doubt that plaintiffs can prove no set of facts in support of their claim that would entitle them to relief. Moreover, if a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) is granted, then ordinarily the plaintiff should be provided an opportunity to amend the complaint if it appears that the deficiencies can be corrected by amendment. See 2A J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶¶ 12.07[2.-5], p. 12-99 (2d ed. 1994). Thus, a complaint will not be dismissed with prejudice under 12 (b)(6) or 8(a) unless it appears that the failure to state a claim cannot be cured by the filing of an amendment.
Defendants have moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim that Mr. Bailey's imprisonment violated his civil rights under § 1983 (counts 17-24). Since Plaintiffs have failed to name any "persons" under § 1983 as Defendants and because there can be no cause of action under § 1983 for negligent acts of prison officials, Defendants' motion to dismiss these counts will be granted. However, this dismissal is without prejudice to filing an Amended Complaint because there exists the possibility Plaintiffs may be able to identify a federal constitutional right which was violated by prison officials. See Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 268 (3d Cir. 2000)....
To continue reading
Request your trial