Faust v. Cabral
| Decision Date | 30 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 12-11020-DJC |
| Parties | JAMES B. FAUST, Plaintiff, v. ANDREA J. CABRAL, SUPERINTENDENT GERARD HOGAN, SEARGENT MELBERG, NAPHCARE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES and KHOA DO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Plaintiff James M. Faust ("Faust"), an inmate in the custody of the Suffolk County House of Correction (the "HOC"), filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. He also asserts a claim for negligence. Faust names five defendants: (1) Andrea J. Cabral ("Cabral"), formerly the Sheriff of the HOC; (2) Gerard Horgan ("Horgan"), the Superintendent of the HOC; (3) Sgt. Melberg ("Melberg"), an officer at the HOC (collectively, the "Prison Official Defendants"); (4) Naphcare Mental Health Services ("Naphcare"), a part of the medical services department at the HOC (Naphcare, together with the Prison Official Defendants, the "Defendants"); and (5) Khoa Do (inmate #1201111) ("Do"), an inmate at the HOC. The Defendants have moved to dismiss certain claims under Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Faust has moved for a temporary restraining order, which the Court treats as a motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Naphcare's motion to dismiss and DENIES in part and GRANTS in part the Prison Official Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court DENIES Faust's motion for injunctive relief.
The Court will dismiss a claim that fails to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To state a plausible claim, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must recite facts sufficient to at least "raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. at 555; see also San Gerónimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Acevedo-Vila, 687 F.3d 465, 471 (1st Cir. 2012). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (alteration in original). At bottom, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that, accepted as true, would allow the Court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Moreover, the Court is mindful that Faust has filed his complaint pro se. A pro se complaint must "be liberally construed [and] however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The following summary is based upon the factual allegations in the complaint, which the Court must, for the purposes of the Defendants' motions to dismiss, accept as true.
Faust is an inmate at the HOC. Compl. at 1. On March 23, 2012, Faust filed a grievance accusing Melberg of unlawfully interfering with Faust's access to the law library. Id. at 2; Ex. A, Compl., D. 1-1. Faust alleges that on April 9, 2012, Melberg retaliated against him for filing the foregoing grievance against him by "[o]rchestrat[ing] an assault" upon Faust. Compl. at 2. Specifically, Melberg moved Faust's then-cellmate to another cell and moved Do, an inmate with mental health issues, into Faust's cell. Id. at 3. According to Faust, Melberg knew that Do had a history of assaultive behavior. Id. On April 11, 2012, Do assaulted Faust "for no apparent reason" causing Faust to sustain "serious physical and emotional injuries." Id. at 3, ¶ 2. Faust alleges that Naphcare has a policy of "restricting, if not outright denying, follow-up care ordered by a doctor when such care is expensive." Id. ¶ 4. Accordingly, Naphcare failed to provide Faust necessary medical care causing him to suffer further physical and emotional pain and injury. Id. ¶ 6.
As a result of the assault, Faust was given a disciplinary report and moved to isolation. Id. at 3; Ex. B, Compl., D. 1-2. The disciplinary report was later dismissed. Compl. at 3. On April 16, 2012, Faust filed a grievance asserting that Melberg deliberately moved Do into his cell and orchestrated the assault in retaliation for Faust's grievance against Melberg. Id.; Ex. C, Compl., D. 1-3. This grievance was denied and Faust appealed. Compl. at 3.
On June 8, 2012, Faust filed a complaint alleging violations of his rights under the First and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution. D. 1. Faust also alleges that the Defendants were negligent. D. 1. Faust requests, among other things, that the Court declare that the Defendants violated his First and/or Eighth Amendment rights, issue an injunction requiring Naphcare to provide physical therapy to Faust and award compensatory and punitive damages. D. 1 at 6-7. Pending before the Court are: Naphcare's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), D. 22; the Prison Official Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), D. 25; Naphcare's motion to strike certain exhibits attached to Faust's opposition to Naphcare's motion to dismiss, D. 30; and Faust's motion for a temporary restraining order, D. 43. After a hearing on these motions, the Court took the matters under advisement.
The Prison Official Defendants argue that the claims against Cabral and Horgan must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA").1 The PLRA provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect toprison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). Thus, a prisoner must exhaust all available administrative remedies before bringing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (). However, "inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). Rather, failure to exhaust under the PLRA is an affirmative defense, id., and "must be raised and proved by the defense," Cruz-Berríos v. González-Rosario, 630 F.3d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 2010). "An inmate's complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust if the allegations in the complaint, taken as true, suffice to establish the failure to exhaust." Facey v. Dickhaut, 892 F. Supp. 2d 347, 354 (D. Mass. 2012).
The PLRA exhaustion requirement demands compliance with the prison's administrative grievance procedures. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218 (). Pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 124, § & (q) and c. 127, § 38E, the Massachusetts Commissioner of Correction issues regulations outlining inmate grievance procedures, which are codified at 103 Mass. Code Regs. § 491.00 et seq. The Massachusetts Department of Correction's ("DOC") grievance policy requires grievances to include "the date of occurrence of the incident" and "a brief statement of facts." 103 Mass. Code Regs. § 491.09(2)(a), (d). In the complaint, Faust alleges that Cabral and Horgan failed to train Melberg properly, the officer who placed Do in his cell, and failed to take steps to ensure that "policies" were being followed to protect Faust from injuries at the hands of inmates who suffer from mental health issues and, more specifically, refused to protecthim from Do. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7. Faust also alleges that on April 16, 2012 he filed Grievance #G12031 to complain about Do's attack, which he claims was orchestrated by Melberg. Id. at 3. In the grievance, which is attached to the complaint, Faust asserts that on "April 11, 2012 at approximately 9:10 am" he was assaulted by inmate #1201111, that Melberg deliberately moved inmate #1201111, who had mental health issues and assaultive behaviors, into Faust's cell, and that this was done in retaliation "base[d] up[on] [Faust's] investigation against him by SID." Ex. A-1, Compl., D. 1-1 at 5.2 Faust requested a "full investigation by SID" of Melberg's placement of the inmate into his cell. Id.
The Prison Official Defendants argue that Faust failed to grieve the claims against Cabral and Horgan because the grievances incorporated in Faust's complaint do not include any alleged misconduct by either Carbal or Hogan and that "in fact," Faust's grievances are "completely void of any misconduct by Defendant Cabral or Defendant Horgan." D. 26 at 12-13. However, the "primary purpose of a grievance system is to alert prison officials of problems, not to act as notice that particular prison officials may be sued." Mallory v. Marshall, 659 F. Supp. 2d 231, 238 (D. Mass. 2009) (Report and Recommendation), adopted by 659 F. Supp. 2d 231 (D. Mass. 2009). Therefore, "exhaustion is not per se inadequate simply because an individual later sued was not named in the grievances." Jones, 549 U.S. at 219. The DOC's grievance regulations do not require the inmate to name defendants or state legal claims. 103 Mass. Code Regs. § 491.09(2)(a)-(f); Mallory, 659 F. Supp. 2d at 238. Rather, the Court must determine whether Faust's claims in the complaint are "like or reasonably related" to the allegations in the grievance. See Carter, 2008 WL 341640, at *4 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial