Grohs v. Fratalone

• Decision Date: 16 October 2015
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 13-7870 (KM) (MAH)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
• Parties: STEVEN GROHS, Plaintiff, v. SGT. FRATALONE, Defendant.

STEVEN GROHS, Plaintiff, v. SGT. FRATALONE, Defendant.

Civ. No. 13-7870 (KM) (MAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

October 16, 2015

OPINION

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff, Steven Grohs, is a resident at the Special Treatment Unit ("STU") in Avenel, New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. Previously, this Court screened Mr. Grohs's complaint and permitted his retaliation and supplemental state law claims to proceed against one defendant, Sgt. Fratalone. Familiarity with that screening opinion (Dkt. No. 3) is assumed; this opinion should be read as a supplement to it.

Presently pending before the Court is Mr. Grohs's amended complaint. The Court must now review the proposed amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 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 form a defendant who is immune from suit. For the reasons set forth below, the amended complaint will be permitted to proceed in part, and dismissed in part.

II. BACKGROUND

The original complaint named several defendants and raised multiple issues. On screening, I permitted a First Amendment retaliation claim, and related state law claims, to go forward against Sgt. Fratalone. The remaining claims I dismissed without prejudice. Sgt. Fratalone answered the original complaint, as screened. (See Dkt. No. 10.) Mr. Grohs, however, filed a motion to amend his complaint. (See Dkt. No. 13.) I granted that motion to amend and stated that the amended complaint would be screened in due course.

The allegations of the amended complaint center on two alleged events. As to the first, it states viable claims. As to the second, it does not.

First, the amended complaint alleges that Grohs was strip searched on June 2, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that defendants Rock-Asencio, Fratalone, Datz and "John Doe" were involved in this strip search. More specifically, Rock-Asencio allegedly radioed Fratalone that she wanted Grohs searched for contraband. Fratalone ordered Grohs to put his hands in the air. Datz then conducted the physical search. Datz pulled up Grohs's shirt and placing a gloved hand underneath Grohs's underpants, making contact with his genitals and buttocks. Datz also lowered Grohs's underwear and pants, exposing his buttocks. Datz then ordered Grohs to remove his sneakers and socks. All the time Fratalone stood nearby and watched. After the search, Grohs heard an unidentified John Doe corrections officer state, "I hope that was worth his hot water."¹ The search was allegedly done in retaliation for Grohs's exercise of his First Amendment rights.

Second, the amended complaint alleges that defendants Santiago, Westrich and Rock-Asencio retaliated against Grohs by seizing legal documents that were in Grohs's possession, but belonged to other inmates, as well as some personal property. Defendant Westrich allegedlyappeared at Mr. Grohs's cubicle on December 18, 2013, acting under orders from defendant Rock-Asencio. Westrich informed Grohs that he was there to confiscate all legal documents in the names of residents other than Grohs. Westrich confiscated approximately ten manila envelopes which contained legal documents that belonged to other residents. Westrich also confiscated personal property of Mr. Grohs, including metal paper clips and a plastic forty-five degree angle. Westrich provided Grohs with a Contraband Seizure Form which stated that the items seized were deemed contraband and posed a threat to the orderly operation of the facility.

Later that day, defendant Santiago had Mr. Grohs removed from open population and placed in an interrogation room. Santiago then interrogated Grohs about a complaint he had made about inadequate access to courts and the storage of legal documents. Grohs complained to Santiago about Westrich's search and confiscation of his personal property. Santiago led Grohs to believe that he was the official who ordered the search because of Grohs's earlier complaints regarding access to courts and the storage of his legal documents.

The amended complaint asserts eight counts:

1. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Rock-Asencio, Fratalone, Datz, and Doe for violating the plaintiff's First Amendment right to be free from retaliation when they initiated or participated in a search of plaintiff's person ("Count I").

2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Santiago, Rock-Asencio and Westrich for violating the plaintiff's First Amendment right to be free from retaliation from the search and seizure of plaintiff's personal property ("Count II").

3. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendant Westrich for violating the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process ("Count III").

4. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendant Westrich for violating the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law ("Count IV").

5. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2(c), against Defendants Santiago, Rock-Asencio, Westrich, Fratalone, Datz, and Doe for violating the plaintiff's rights under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act ("Count V").

6. Pursuant to Article I, Section 1, of the New Jersey Constitution, against Defendants Santiago, Rock-Asencio, Westrich, Fratalone, Datz and Doe for violating the plaintiff's rights of free speech ("Count VI").

7. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 30:4-24.2, against Defendants Santiago, Rock-Asencio, Westrich, Fratalone, Datz and Doe for violating the Patient's Bill of Rights ("Count VII").

8. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. §§ 10A:35-2.1 and 10:36A-2.1, against Defendants Santiago, Rock-Asencio, Westrich, Fratalone, Datz and Doe for violating the plaintiff's rights under the SVPA ("Count VIII").

III. LEGAL STANDARD

On screening, "[t]he legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)." Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App'x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)). That standard is set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), as explicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. To survive the court's screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter" to show that the claim is facially plausible. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3dCir. 2009) (citation omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). "[A] pleading that offers 'labels or conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Pro se pleadings, as always, will be liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nevertheless, "pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

IV. SCREENING—FEDERAL CLAIMS

A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights. Section 1983 provides in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 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, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

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. See Harvey v.Plains Twp. Police Dep't, 635 F.3d 606, 609 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

A. Count I (first amendment retaliation; strip search)

Count I of the amended complaint alleges that on June 2, 2013, defendants Rock-Asencio, Fratalone, Datz, and Doe participated in a strip search of Grohs in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights. "A [person] alleging retaliation must show (1) constitutionally protected conduct, (2) an adverse action by prison officials sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights, and (3) a causal link between the exercise of his constitutional rights and the adverse action taken against him." Mack v. Yost, 427 F. App'x 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003)).

I permitted this First Amendment retaliation claim, as articulated in the original complaint, to proceed against Sgt. Fratalone. In brief, my earlier screening opinion found that the original complaint alleged constitutionally protected conduct, i.e., the filing of a federal court complaint, Civ. No. 12-0905, complaining of lack of hot water at the STU. (See Dkt. No. 3 at p. 17.) It further found that the alleged strip search could rise to the...