Miller v. Fraley
| Decision Date | 05 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 12-4470 (MAS) |
| Parties | LIONELL G. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT FRALEY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OPINIONAPPEARANCES:
LIONELL G. MILLER, Plaintiff prose
New Jersey State Prison
11 Marshall Street, 3 Cell #41
Passaic, New Jersey 07505
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's submission of an amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7.) The Court is required to review the Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)1 and 1915A, 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 Court will allow the amended Complaint to proceed in part.
On July 18, 2102, Plaintiff, Lionell G. Miller ("Plaintiff"), filed an initial compilation of documents numbering 91 pages. (ECF No. 1.) The submission contained a caption naming 19 Defendants, including the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("NJDOC"). the warden, administrator and assistant warden of the New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP"), numerous correctional officers and an unidentified John Doe. (Id.) The submission also contained a page stating conclusory allegations lacking any factual predicate. (Id. at 2-3.) In an Opinion and Order entered on April 23, 2013, this Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims related to a failure to respond to his grievances or letters and his claims based solely on the theory of respondeat superior. This Court further dismissed without prejudice the remainder of Plaintiff's action, allowing Plaintiff to submit an amended pleading, provided that such amended pleading was executed in compliance with the requirements of Rules 8, 18 and 20, as detailed in the Court's April 23, 2013 Opinion. (ECF Nos. 3 and 4.)
On June 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint (ECF No. 7), and on January 30, 2014, this Court re-opened this matter for screening of the amendment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. (ECF No. 9.) In his amended Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants the following correctional officers ("SCO") at NJSP: SCO Robert Fraley, SCO McDonough, SCO J. Lindsey, SCO Thompson, SCO L. Viton, SCO A. Cobb, SCO B. Schafer, SCO E. Emrich, SCO S. Abrams, and SCO John Doe. Plaintiff also names as Defendants, Valisa Leonard, an officer with the Special Investigation Division ("SID") at NJSP, and Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") Lisa Jantz. (ECF No. 7, Am. Compl. at Caption and 5-29.)
Plaintiff alleges that on February 10, 12, and 19, 2011, certain items of his personal property were purposefully damaged while Plaintiff was not in his cell. When he complainedabout the property damage, he was told to submit remedy forms, which he did. (Id., ¶¶31-33.) On February 23, 2011, Plaintiff complained directly to NJSP Assistant Administrator William J. Anderson and Defendant SCO Thompson about the destruction of his property and was told that it is part of prison life. Anderson then told Plaintiff to file a remedy form and walked away. (Id., ¶¶ 34-36.) That evening, Plaintiff returned to his cell and discovered that his cell toilet and his sneakers had been damaged. Plaintiff filed a remedy form and a grievance with the NJDOC Ombudsman and NJDOC Commissioner Gary M. Lanigan. (Id., ¶ 37.)
In March 2011, while NJSP Administrator Greg Bartkowski was conducting a tour of the administrative segregation unit, Plaintiff informed Bartkowski that correctional officers were allowing inmates to enter Plaintiff's cell and destroy his personal property. Plaintiff also complained that his mail was not being delivered to him and that his remedy forms were unanswered. Bartkowski simply told Plaintiff to keep submitting forms. (Id., ¶ 38.)
On March 17, 2011, when Plaintiff went to shower, he took a mirror with him to watch his cell. While in the shower, Plaintiff observed Inmate Johnson exit a cell in the location of Plaintiff's cell even though Johnson's cell was in the front of the tier. A correctional officer remained at the front gate looking down the tier as this occurred. After Plaintiff finished showering, Defendant SCO Fraley let Plaintiff out of the shower and Plaintiff started to return to his cell. On his way, Plaintiff noticed Inmate Johnson's cell door was open and as Plaintiff walked in front of Johnson's cell, Johnson approached Plaintiff and asked why Plaintiff was ''submitting remedy forms about him.'" Plaintiff told Johnson he wasn't submitting remedy forms about him and started to walk away. Johnson came after Plaintiff, saying that he had "something to get off his chest." Plaintiff assumed a defensive stance and Johnson, who is 6'4"and 270 pounds, pinned Plaintiff against the steel bars with all his weight and began to "savagely punch and knee" Plaintiff. (Id., ¶¶ 39-45.)
This beating occurred for several minutes before correctional staff entered the tier and pulled Johnson off Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Fraley and McDounagh had stood at the front gate watching the attack. (Id., ¶ 46.) These officers pepper sprayed Plaintiff, threw him to the floor, handcuffed him, and took Plaintiff to the front of the tier to Defendant Lt. Emrich. Emrich allegedly stated to Plaintiff that he "did not give a fuck about lawsuits." (Id., ¶ 47.) Plaintiff was taken to the infirmary where he remained for several days. As Plaintiff was being taken to the infirmary, however, Anderson "looked Plaintiff in the eye and smiled from ear to ear." (Id., ¶¶ 47-48.)
On March 18, 2011, while Plaintiff was in the infirmary, he was served with three disciplinary charges written by Defendant Fraley. Plaintiff pled not guilty to the charges and asked for the video footage from the surveillance cameras located in the area where the incident occurred. (Id., ¶¶ 49, 50.) On March 21, 2011, Plaintiff was moved from the infirmary to the detention unit. The next day, on March 22, 2011, Plaintiff submitted an administrative remedy form alleging that Inmate Johnson assaulted Plaintiff at the behest of correctional staff in retaliation against Plaintiff for filing a complaint and using the inmate grievance system. (Id., ¶ 51.)
Plaintiff next alleges that his disciplinary hearing was adjourned several times because he had requested video tape evidence and a confrontation with Defendant Fraley, who wrote the disciplinary charges. Plaintiff was informed by Defendant DHO Jantz that Plaintiff could not ask the majority of the questions that Plaintiff had wanted to ask Defendant Fraley. Jantz also told Plaintiff that no video footage existed regarding Plaintiff's and Inmate Johnson's altercation,but Plaintiff stated that he did not request that footage. Rather, Plaintiff had requested the video surveillance tapes that would have shown Fraley letting Plaintiff out of the shower unit. This video footage also was not produced. (Id., ¶¶ 52-54.) Plaintiff was found guilty of three disciplinary infractions and was sanctioned 30 days detention, 270 days loss of commutation credits, 30 days loss of recreation privilege, and 450 days in administrative segregation. (Id., ¶ 55.)
Plaintiff complains that while he was in detention, a correctional officer " (Id., ¶ 56.) After his 30 days detention was completed, Defendant Emrich kept Plaintiff in detention for 15 extra days. He was placed in administrative segregation on April 30, 2011, but the same correctional staff defendants remained as Plaintiff's housing officers. Consequently, Plaintiff's personal property continued to be stolen or damaged. Plaintiff submitted a remedy form for stolen and damaged property on May 2, 2011 and a remedy form complaining that he was placed in a unit run by the same officers who had "previously attacked him and destroyed his property." (Id., ¶¶ 57-59.)
On May 4, 2011, Plaintiff verbally informed Assistant Administrator Anderson that his personal property had been stolen and destroyed, and that he was housed in a unit run by the offending officers. Anderson told Plaintiff to submit a remedy form as to the property complaint and that he would be moved once his "level" increased. (Id., ¶ 60.)
Plaintiff also complains that certain Defendant officers, Cobb, Viton and Abrams, repeatedly tampered with his food and food trays. For instance, on May 15, 2011, Cobb served Plaintiff a food tray that had been sliced with a razor with the food leaking out. On May 24,2011, Cobb shook Plaintiff's food tray so that all the food mixed together. On June 15, 2011, Viton also shook Plaintiff's food tray, mixing all the food together. Even after Plaintiff had been transferred to a different tier in the administrative segregation unit,2 this tampering with his food continued. On October 19, 2011, Defendant Abrams shook Plaintiff's food tray. On November 7, 2011, Defendant Herman also shook Plaintiff's food tray. On November 16, 2011, Abrams cut a hole in Plaintiff's hot pocket, causing the contents to leak out when Plaintiff picked it up. Also on November 16, 2011, Macaulery gave Plaintiff a tray which had a sharp steel shard concealed in the mashed potatoes. On January 18, 2012, Black shook Plaintiff's food tray. On January 25, 2012, Abrams shook Plaintiff's food tray. On each occasion, Plaintiff requested another food tray and was told to eat the one given or go hungry. Plaintiff submitted remedy forms, some of which were answered but most remained unanswered. (Id., ¶¶ 61-64, 67-74.)
On February 24, 2012, Abrams placed paper under Plaintiff's grits and Plaintiff refused the tray, asking for a different one. Instead, Abrams slammed the food tray through the food...
To continue reading
Request your trial