Mesadieu v. Union Cnty., Civil Action No. 17-9014 (JMV/JBC)
| Decision Date | 06 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 17-9014 (JMV/JBC) |
| Parties | GUILIO MESADIEU, Plaintiff, v. UNION COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Guilio Mesadieu, proceeding pro se, seeks to bring a federal civil rights complaint. (DE 1.) At this time,1 the Court must review Mr. Mesadieu's 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 from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
For the reasons set forth below, the following claims may now proceed: (1) Mesadieu's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim against Officer Wilson; (2) his § 1983 civil conspiracy claim as against Wilson and Lieutenant Muir only; and (3) his state law claims against Wilson for assault, cruelty and unusual punishment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). The following claims are dismissed with prejudice: (1) Mesadieu's § 1983 claims against UnionCounty Jail ("UCJ"); and (2) his state law IIED claim as against Union County and UCJ. All other claims in Mesadieu's pleading are dismissed without prejudice.
II. BACKGROUND
Mr. Mesadieu's present civil action arises out of an incident that allegedly occurred during his confinement at Union County Jail.2 His complaint formally identifies the following defendants: (1) Union County;3 (2) UCJ; (3); Ronald L. Charles, UCJ's warden; (4) Captain Anthony Bonito; (5) Lieutenant Thomas Muir; (6) Officer Wilson; and (7) John Does 1-60. (DE 1 at PageID: 1-2.)
Mesadieu avers that on December 23, 2016,4 "while sleeping in [his] assigned cell roomin [UCJ,] he was "abruptly awaken[ed] by being kicked and stomped by [Officer Wilson]." (DE 1 at PageID: 9.) Officer Wilson thereafter exited Mesadieu's cell, only to return "moments later" to resume "the assault by pulling on [Mesadieu's] leg until [his] body was hanging mid-way off the bed [he] was laying on." (Id.) "[Wilson] once again exited [Mesadieu's] cell, then came back a third time . . . wearing gloves and proceeded to [strike Mesadieu] with punches causing bodily injury and attempted to pull [Mesadieu's] jail issued uniform off of [his] body exposing [his] bare rear end and lower back." (Id. at PageID: 10.) Officer Wilson's actions made Mesadieu "afraid for his life" and "wonder[ing] if he would die in the escalation of the attack." (Id.) Mesadieu "suffered from bruised ribs and severe pain in his right leg" as a result of Wilson's attack. (Id.)
"[Lieutenant Muir] and [unidentified] Union County Medical Staff . . . entered [Mesadieu's] cell [moments after Wilson's attack]." (Id.) At that time, Mesadieu informed Lieutenant Muir that he wanted to file a formal complaint against Officer Wilson and requested medical attention. (Id.) In response, Muir said "we're not beat"5 and "then exited the room and closed the door[,]" thereby acting unconcerned and indifferent when Mesadieu reported Officer Wilson's alleged attack shortly after it happened. (Id.) Mesadieu's contemporaneous request for medical attention was also denied. (Id.)
After the alleged assault, Wilson, Muir and certain otherwise unidentified correctionsofficers and UCJ medical staff "falsif[ied] medical records [and, further, that those individuals] knowingly and willfully spoliate[d] all records of the attack to cover [Wilson's] misconduct." (Id. at PageID: 11.) In addition, certain otherwise unspecified defendants assisted in this cover-up "by not documenting the assault in the county log book." (Id. at PageID: 10.) Those same unnamed defendants also moved Mesadieu to another cell "[t]o make sure the assault was . . . not reported on file." (Id.) Mesadieu further claims that "Union County medical staff [altered and fabricated] medical record and reports, as well as the dates of [Mesadieu's] medical appointments . . . in [UCJ's] system." (Id.) Defendants covered-up the December 23rd incident "despite the fact that video evidence of the assault exist[s.]" (Id. at PageID: 14.) Through these actions, "defendants have wrongfully and intentionally concealed information crucial to [Mesadieu's] ability to obtain relief through the courts." (Id. at PageID: 13.)
Defendants' purported cover-up of the assault was done "in conjunction [with and] while operating with a 'code of silence' policy between all defendants." (Id. at PageID: 11.) Pursuant to this "code of silence" policy, "[UCJ] officers would not report [the] misconduct of other [UCJ] officers." (DE 1 at PageID: 12.) The code of silence has a "long history of being practiced within the Union County Administration and/or [UCJ]." (Id.) This policy "allow[s] the[] officers [of UCJ] to falsify, spoliate records, and cover[]-up their misconduct" and to act "without fear of reprimand, discipline, or termination[.]" (Id. at PageID: 16, 17.)
Mesadieu claims, in sweeping fashion, that "Officer Wilson and all the defendants named [in his complaint] did commit and/or [were] aware of a brutal assault against [him] . . . and all defendants [instead] chose to abide by [this] 'code of silence' policy." (Id. at PageID: 11.) Mesadieu likewise claims that defendants "failed to take the necessary steps to break the 'code of silence' policy." (Id.) Mesadieu specifically claims that defendants Union County, UCJ,Warden Charles, Captain Bonito, and Lieutenant Muir - who each "have a duty to supervise the staff members of [UCJ]" to "ensure that [they] are operating within the rules and regulations to maintain order and structure in a case of safety and security" (Id. at PageID: 14) - "permitted, encouraged, tolerated, and knowingly acquiesced" to this policy. (Id. at PageID: 15.) He alleges that each of these defendants "failed to take proper actions to protect and/or preserve the safety of inmates of [UCJ.]" (Id.) Mesadieu relatedly claims that "defendants have a well settled and permanent policy of allowing [UCJ] officers and staff members, including Officer Wilson, to attack and assault inmates willfully, creating an atmosphere of illegal and unconstitutional behavior in reckless disregard of [UCJ inmates'] welfare and safety[.]" (Id.)
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (Apr. 26, 1996) ("PLRA"), district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
"The 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)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F. App'x 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l)); Courteau v. United States, 287 F. App'x. 159,162 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). 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 (3d Cir. 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). A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "'that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."' Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981). Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (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. ANALYSIS
Mesadieu avers that all of the defendants identified in his complaint, i.e., Union County, UCJ, Warden Charles, Captain Bonito, Lieutenant Muir, Officer Wilson, and John Does 1-60, are liable under § 1983. A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights by a state official or employee. Section 1983 provides, in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ... 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.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. To obtain relief under this statute, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial