McKinney v. Lanigan
| Decision Date | 17 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civ. 18-8618 (FLW) |
| Parties | IVAN G. MCKINNEY, Plaintiff, v. GARY LANIGAN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
This matter has been opened to the Court by Plaintiff Ivan McKinney's (“McKinney” or “Plaintiff”) filing of a motion to for leave to amend his Complaint and an Amended Complaint. See ECF Nos. 29-30. The Court previously provided leave for Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint. As such, the motion to amend, ECF No. 29, is dismissed as moot. Pursuant to its screening authority under 28 U.S.C. § 19159(e)(2)(B) the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint in part and proceeds it in part, as explained in this Memorandum Opinion.
McKinney is a state prisoner at New Jersey State Prison and a frequent filer in this District. The claims in this action arise entirely from McKinney's transportation by van between corrections facilities on November 10, 2015. See ECF No. 1.
McKinney alleges that he was picked up at 10am on November 10, 2015 at Bergen County Jail by Central Transportation because he had a court hearing in Bergen County Superior Court the prior day. See Am. Complaint at ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff was initially picked up by John Doe corrections officers, and he and other prisoners were subsequently transferred to another DOC van driven by Defendants Becker and Burgess. See id. at ¶¶ 3-4.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Becker and Burgess purposely denied Plaintiff and other prisoners adequate “ventilation,” and when Plaintiff asked for the officers to provide more air and told them he couldn't breathe, Becker and Burgess turned the heat on high, turned up the radio, and laughed. See Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 4-8. Plaintiff alleges he has prediabetes and high blood pressure, and that the lack of ventilation and/or heat made him feel weak and panicky. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. After Becker and Burgess turned off the radio, Plaintiff begged them to turn on the air, and Defendants Becker and Burgess allegedly stated: “at least I don't rape little girls[.]” Defendants Becker and Burgess allegedly had Plaintiff's “Face Sheet” showing that Plaintiff was convicted of sexual assault, and Plaintiff's contends that their conduct amounts to retaliation and cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at ¶¶ 11-15. Plaintiff further alleges that he feared dying from suffocation and that he was “defrauded of proper air” for two hours. See id. ¶¶ at 16-17.
When the van reached Bordentown, New Jersey, Plaintiff and one other inmate were transferred onto another van driven by Defendant Corrections Officers Baez and Kempf. Id. at ¶ 18. Baez drove the van from Bordentown, New Jersey to CRAF, which is located in Trenton, New Jersey. See id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges that he had been traveling by van for “6 or 7 hours” by the time he reached CRAF.[1] Id. at ¶ 20. At CRAF, the other inmate and Plaintiff, who takes water pills for his prediabetes, blood pressure medication, and aspirin, asked to use the restroom, but Defendant Baez cursed and denied their requests. Id. at ¶¶ 21-23. Defendant Kempf was in CRAF for three hours, and during this period Plaintiff and the other inmate could not use the restroom. Id. at ¶ 24. When Plaintiff and the other inmate asked Baez to use the restroom, they were standing in the stopped van stretching their legs, and Baez starting “rough-riding” the van, slamming on the gas and the breaks, and starting and stopping the van. See id. at ¶¶ 25-28. The “rough ride” caused injuries to Plaintiff's back, neck, and knees. See id. at ¶¶ 29-30. After the rough ride, Baez laughed and stated that she thought Plaintiff was going to “piss.” Id. at ¶ 37.
In addition to the claims against Baez, Plaintiff alleges that Kempf, who was not present during the rough ride, had a duty to Plaintiff and knew or should have known that Plaintiff would have to use the restroom during the eight hour period of time he spent in the three DOC vans. See id. at ¶¶ 31-36.
Plaintiff further alleges that all the corrections officers acted in concert to retaliate against Plaintiff for asking for ventilation and to use the restroom, and due to his criminal convictions. Id. at ¶ 38.
In addition to his claims against the corrections officers, Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant General failed to supervise the corrections officers on November 10, 2015. Id. at ¶ 39. Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant General should have known that Plaintiff would need to use the restroom on an eight-hour trip, that Defendant Kempf was wasting three hours of time at CRAF on that date, and that Plaintiff was transferred three times on that date. Id. at ¶¶ 40-42. Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant General should have trained the corrections officers not to withhold ventilation or restrooms from prisoners, and not to assault prisoners with rough rides. Sergeant General also should have assured that a one-hour trip did not take eight hours. See id. at ¶¶ 43-46. Plaintiff further alleges that the corrections officers had a duty to assure that cameras were working in the van on November 10, 2015. See id. at ¶¶ 47-48.
Plaintiff also alleges that DOC Commissioner Gary Lanigan and Assistant Commissioner Betty Norris “failed to train, discipline, and act” and were “aware of the severe harassment, retaliation, and abuse toward McKinney by N.J. DOC actors over time.” Id. at ¶ 49. Plaintiff alleges that he “filed multiple grievances about the severe abuse” and wrote multiple letters to Norris and Lanigan. Id. at ¶ 50. According to Plaintiff, “had Lanigan acted or disiplined [sic] past actions, defendants would have acted appropriately.” Id. at ¶ 51. Plaintiff contends that Lanigan was in charge of “setting policy” for New Jersey Department of Corrections and “failed severely.” Id. at ¶ 53. Lanigan allegedly “knew or should have known that failing to act, train, and disipline [sic] would send a message that defendant's behavior was accepted by NJDOC.” Id. at ¶ 54.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges in his Amended Complaint that he was hindered in exhausting his administrative remedies as to his claims arising from van rides on November 10, 2015, and he seeks equitable tolling on his claims. See id. at ¶¶ 55-60.
Plaintiff's original Complaint was docketed on April 23, 2018, approximately two years and five months after the November 10, 2015 incident, and he stated in his cover letter that he had originally submitted the Complaint for filing on March 19, 2017.[2] See ECF No. 1. The Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. In response to McKinney's Complaint and cover letter, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why his claims should not be dismissed as untimely. ECF Nos. 13-14. Plaintiff sought an extension of time to respond, which was granted by the Court. See ECF Nos. 15-17. Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause and subsequently submitted a letter motion asking the Court to permit his claims to proceed, and several letters with exhibits. ECF Nos. 19, 22, 23-24.
In an Opinion dated December 21, 2021, the Court screened the Complaint for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), declined to apply the prisoner mailbox rule, found the federal claims in Plaintiff's Complaint untimely under the two-year limitations period for filing a civil rights action, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.[3] See ECF Nos. 25-26. The Court noted that Plaintiff may have some basis for equitable tolling but required those facts to be pleaded in the Complaint. See id. The Court directed the Clerk to administratively terminate the matter and permitted Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint within 45 days that included all the facts he has to support equitable tolling with respect to the claims arising from the incidents on November 10, 2015. See id.
Plaintiff sought an extension of time, which was granted by the Court. See ECF Nos. 2728. Plaintiff submitted a motion to amend his Complaint and an Amended Complaint on March 10, 2022. ECF Nos. 29-30.
The Court explicitly provided leave for Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint. As such, Plaintiff's motion to amend is unnecessary, and the Court dismisses the motion to amend as moot and screens Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Federal law requires the Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court first addresses whether the federal claims in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are untimely and subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) on that basis. A District Court can raise the issue of the statute of limitations sua sponte at the screening stage. See Hunterson v. Disabato, 532 Fed.Appx. 110, 111-12 (3d Cir. 2007) (). In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has pleaded some facts to suggest that the exhaustion of his administrative remedies as to the claims arising from the November 10, 2015 van rides was delayed or hindered by prison officials. The Third Circuit has held in several decisions that because exhaustion of prison administrative remedies is mandatory under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the statute of limitations applicable to §...
To continue reading
Request your trial