In re Bayside Prison Litigation, Civil Action No. 97-5127.

Decision Date13 March 2002
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 97-5127.
Citation190 F.Supp.2d 755
PartiesIn re BAYSIDE PRISON LITIGATION.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Justin T. Loughry, Lawrence W. Lindsay, Loughry & Lindsay, LLC, Camden, NJ, Audrey J. Bomse, Piscataway, NJ, Paul J. Hirsh, Paul Hirsh, P.C., Parsippany, NJ, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew J. Kyreakakis, Ambrosio, Kyreakakis & Dilorenzo, LLP, Bloomfield, NJ, for Plaintiff, Junius Williams.

Mark M. Roselli, Kusnirik & Fornaro, Hamilton, NJ, for Defendants.

OPINION

ORLOFSKY, District Judge.

This § 1983 prison litigation is, incredibly, still in its initial phases almost four-and-a-half years after the first complaint was filed on October 17, 1997. This prolonged first act is the result of the hundreds of constantly evolving Plaintiffs, the impossibility of maintaining the case as a class action, and the shifting contours of the law applicable to Plaintiffs' claims. This latest, and presumably last Motion to Dismiss, presents this Court with two novel questions.

First, I must address whether Plaintiffs are required to meet a pleading standard more demanding than the one set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a),1 for claims against individual government officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Second, I must decide whether the "grievance procedure" described in the Bayside Prison Inmate Handbook could or did constitute an "available administrative remedy" for purposes of the exhaustion requirement contained in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (2000)("PLRA").

For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Supreme Court's recent reiteration of the purpose of the simplified pleading system embodied in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the conclusion that Plaintiffs can not be held to a "heightened pleading standard" for their § 1983 claims. I further conclude that while the administrative remedies described in internal prison documents that are not promulgated pursuant to a state administrative procedure act may constitute an "administrative remedy" under the PLRA, the procedures codified in the Bayside Prison Inmate Handbook were not sufficiently clear, expeditious, or respected by prison officials to constitute such an administrative remedy.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in this case are hundreds of inmates incarcerated at the Bayside State Correctional Facility ("Bayside") in Leesburg, New Jersey, between July 30, 1997 and November 1, 1997. Plaintiffs allege that following the fatal stabbing of Corrections Officer Fred Baker by Inmate Steven Beverly on July 30, 1997, a "lock down" was ordered at Bayside, during which they suffered a panoply of injuries at the hands of Defendants, in violation of their constitutional rights. See Sixth Amended Compl. at ¶ 4. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint2 marks the end of this lengthy prelude to substantive discovery,3 thus, a brief summary of the case's procedural history is in order.

Plaintiffs' initial complaint was filed on October 17, 1997. An Amended Complaint followed quickly thereafter on October 31, 1997. Pursuant to a Court Order, Plaintiffs' counsel conducted a series of interviews with Bayside inmates, in order to determine the composition of the Plaintiff class. See Order of Nov. 16, 1997. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs cross-moved to file a Second Amended Complaint on February 6, 1998. In an Opinion dated September 29, 1998, I granted in part and denied in part both motions. See White v. Fauver, 19 F.Supp.2d 305 (D.N.J.1998), abrogated in part by Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir.2000) and Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289 (3d Cir.2000). Specifically, this Court held: (1) the PLRA did not encompass complaints of excessive force; (2) the PLRA did not encompass claims of false disciplinary charges or retaliation for filing suit; (3) the PLRA's requirement that inmates exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit did not apply to claims for compensatory and punitive damages where monetary relief was not available under a state's inmate grievance procedure; (4) allegations of mere threats do not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (5) prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to allegations of unconstitutional prison conditions. In granted Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, except with regard to the retaliation claim in Count V, which was denied without prejudice for Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See White, 19 F.Supp.2d at 322.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to White on December 22, 1998, and, due to inadvertent omissions, filed a Third Amended Complaint two days later, on December 24, 1998. Magistrate Judge Rosen consolidated the separately filed cases for case management purposes only on December 31, 1998, and amended the caption to read: "In re: Bayside Prison Litigation." See Order of Dec. 31, 1998.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class action on September 3, 1999, seeking to name Plaintiffs Laverna White, Carlos Martinez and Michael Shontz as class representatives. I denied that motion in an Order dated April 25, 2000, finding that the Complaint alleged that Plaintiffs suffered widely varying types of injury at different times and at the hands of many different defendants, thus, "individual issues overwhelm[ed] those that might be viewed as common." See Order of Apr. 25, 2000, at 6-8; Memorandum Op., In re Bayside Prison Litigation, 2002 WL 386706, ____ F.Supp.2d ____ (D.N.J.2000).

Defendants filed a Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint on March 22, 1999. While that motion was pending, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint on July 29, 1999 in order to add approximately 656 new plaintiffs and 228 new defendants. That motion was granted on September 10, 1999. See Order of Sept. 10, 1999 (Rosen, J.). On December 2, 1999, this Court ruled on Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which, due to the interim filing of the substantially similar Fourth Amended Complaint, was treated as a Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. See Order of Dec. 2, 1999, at 4 (Orlofsky, J.). Specifically, I:(1) denied Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' allegations of derogatory name calling and inadequate medical care; and, (2) granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the due process claims of Plaintiffs which alleged that they were coerced into pleading guilty to disciplinary charges because a writ of habeas corpus is the sole remedy for such claims. Id. at 7.

After filing a Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint on January 31, 2000, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint in its entirety on July 12, 2000. Defendants argued that recent opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, i.e., Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir.2000) and Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2000), dictated the dismissal of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In a Bench Opinion, dated November 29, 2000, I recognized that both Nyhuis and Booth impacted the In re Bayside Prison Litigation, because they established, respectively, that there is no "futility exception" to the PLRA's administrative exhaustion requirement, and that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement applied to claims of excessive force. See Bench Op. of Nov. 29, 2000. I denied both motions on November 29, 2000, however, because of the changing state of the law governing the issues in the case, and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint that: (1) alleged that each Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies; (2) removed references to the First, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (3) removed references to malicious destruction of personal property. See Order of Nov. 29, 2000.

Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on March 29, 2001.4 Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on October 16, 2001. While that motion was pending, Plaintiffs were given leave to file a Sixth Amended Complaint, solely to "supply further detail to the claims already asserted by 42 specific individuals, all named plaintiffs in the previous complaint." See Order of Dec. 11, 2001 (Rosen, J.). Judge Rosen's Order also provided that no further amendments to the Complaint will be allowed. Id. When it was discovered that the Sixth Amended Complaint added eight new plaintiffs in contravention of Magistrate Judge Rosen's Order, the Court ordered that those plaintiffs be stricken from the Sixth Amended Complaint. See Order of Jan. 3, 2002 (Rosen, J.)(striking Sixth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 187a (Glen Michael Jackson); 232a (William David Mellow); 249a (Joseph Novak); 267a (Edwin Martin Ranero); 280a (Gerard Roberts); 282c (Ramon Rodriguez); 344a (Charles L. White); 354a (Channy Young)).

I shall now consider Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint. Because the Sixth Amended Complaint is substantially identical to the Fifth Amended Complaint, and because Defendants have requested that this Court treat their pending Motion to Dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint as their Answer to the Sixth Amended Complaint, see Letter from Roselli to Magistrate Judge Rosen of Jan. 11, 2002, I shall treat the pending motion as one to dismiss the Sixth (and final) Amended Complaint.

I have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. For the reasons set forth below, I will deny in part and grant in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, I will: (1) grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the § 1985(3) conspiracy claims, contained in Count IV of Plaintiffs' Sixth Amended Complaint and in Count III of Williams's Fifth...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • In re Daniels, Bankruptcy No. 03-10845 SR.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Third Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • July 16, 2003
    ...that District Courts have repeatedly extended Leatherman to civil rights cases involving individuals); In re Bayside Prison Litigation, 190 F.Supp.2d 755, 764 (D.N.J.2002) that stare decisis did not require heightened pleading standard in § 1983 complaint against local official); Alexander ......
  • In re NJ Affordable Homes Corp., Case No.: 05-60442 (DHS)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Jersey
    • November 8, 2013
    ...by reference; (iii) of public record; and (iv) integral to or upon which the plaintiff's claim is based. See In re Bayside Prison Litig., 190 F. Supp. 2d 755, 760 (D.N.J. 2002). Essentially, the problem of lack of notice to the plaintiff is dissipated "where plaintiff has actual notice . . ......
  • Chugh v. Western Inventory Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 03CV4466.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • July 9, 2004
    ...by reference; (3) matters of public record; and (4) matters integral to or upon which plaintiff's claim is based. In re Bayside Prison Litig., 190 F.Supp.2d 755 (D.N.J.2002) (citations Attached to the Defendant's notice of motion to dismiss are various supporting affidavits, the DCR's final......
  • Doty v. United States, Civ. No. 15-3016 (NLH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • June 15, 2016
    ...notice. S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426 (3d Cir. 1999); In re Bayside Prison Litig., 190 F.Supp.2d 755, 760 (D.N.J. 2002); see also Winer Family Trust v. Queen, 503 F.3d 319, 327 (3d Cir. 2007). For this reason, the Court will not consider the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • In Re Bayside Prison Litigation.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 22, May 2002
    • May 1, 2002
    ...District Court LOCKDOWN In Re Bayside Prison Litigation, 190 F.Supp.2d 755 (D.N.J. 2002). State prison inmates brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging numerous alleged constitutional violations. The district denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as it pertained ......
  • In Re Bayside Prison Litigation.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 22, May 2002
    • May 1, 2002
    ...District Court PLRA -- Prison Litigation Reform Act EXHAUSTION In Re Bayside Prison Litigation, 190 F.Supp.2d 755 (D.N.J. 2002). State prison inmates brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging numerous alleged constitutional violations. The district denied the defenda......
  • In Re Bayside Prison Litigation.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 22, May 2002
    • May 1, 2002
    ...CRIPA -- Civil Rts. of Institutionalized Persons Act PLRA -- Prison Litigation Reform Act In Re Bayside Prison Litigation, 190 F.Supp.2d 755 (D.N.J. 2002). State prison inmates brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging numerous alleged constitutional violations. The ......
  • In Re Bayside Prison Litigation.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 22, May 2002
    • May 1, 2002
    ...District Court EXHAUSTION PLRA -- Prison Litigation Reform Act In Re Bayside Prison Litigation, 190 F.Supp.2d 755 (D.N.J. 2002). State prison inmates brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging numerous alleged constitutional violations. The district denied the defenda......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT