Murray v. United States

Decision Date13 October 2021
Docket NumberCivil Action 21-4903 (JMV) (MF)
PartiesGREGORY MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

GREGORY MURRAY, Plaintiff,
v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-4903 (JMV) (MF)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

October 13, 2021


OPINION

VAZQUEZ, DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff, a federal pretrial detainee, is proceeding pro se with an Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Complaint”) asserting claims under various federal statutes and related state law claims. (D.E. 4.) For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court will dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the United States, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals Service, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the claims against Chief Judge Freda Wolfson for monetary relief, and the claims against Governor Phil Murphy in his official capacity for monetary relief. The Court will dismiss the remainder of Plaintiff's federal claims without prejudice and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from Plaintiff's federal pretrial detention at the Essex County Correctional Facility, in Newark, New Jersey. Plaintiff sues (1) the United States of America; (2) the United States Marshals Service; (3) the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; (4) the United States Department of Justice; (5) Chief Judge Freda Wolfson; (6) Governor Phil Murphy;

1

(7) Essex County; (8) Director Alfaro Ortiz; (9) Warden Guy Cirello; and (10) CFG Medical Services, as Defendants in this matter.

This Complaint is one of numerous, nearly identical amended complaints, [1] from pretrial detainees at the Essex County Correctional Facility, seeking to proceed as a class action. See, e.g., McClain v. United States, No. 21-4997, 2021 WL 2224270, at *1 (D.N.J. June 2, 2021); Middlebrooks v. United States, No. 21-9225, 2021 WL 2224308, at *1 (D.N.J. June 2, 2021).[2]

Plaintiff, like the other detainees, lists a myriad of federal claims, but the thrust of the Complaint alleges that the Government violated his speedy trial rights through Chief Judge Wolfson's COVID-19 pandemic related standing orders. (D.E. 4, at 7-11.) In those orders, Chief Judge Wolfson held that the pandemic warranted the exclusion of various periods of time from the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). (See, e.g., Standing Order 20-02, at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff also complains about various pandemic related restrictions at the jail such as limited visitation, religious services, discovery access, legal research time, and medical care, as well as slow mail, lockdowns, extreme quarantines, and a lack of access to attorneys. (D.E. 4, at 11.)

Plaintiff, however, offers no details on how he believes that any particular Defendant violated his individual rights. Moreover, apart from Chief Judge Wolfson's standing orders, Plaintiff only alleges that Governor Murphy issued unspecified “Covid-19 emergency orders, ” and that Director Ortiz issued unspecified “emergency declarations, ” that somehow violated Plaintiff's

2

rights. (Id. at 6.) Beyond these three references, the Complaint does not specify which Defendants were involved in which violations, and simply concludes that all of the Defendants were responsible in some way.

In March of 2021, Plaintiff filed the initial complaint, and in April of 2021, he filed the operative Complaint in this matter. In terms of relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief. In particular, he seeks to vacate unspecified pandemic related orders and declarations and requests four days of jail credit for every day in detention “during the period of March 15, 2020 to present.” (Id. at 23-24.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

District courts must review complaints in civil actions in which a prisoner files suit against “a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, ” and in actions where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a). District courts must 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. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2). When considering a dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, courts apply the same standard of review as that for dismissing a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Schreane v. Seana, 506 Fed.Appx. 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012).

Consequently, to survive sua sponte 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). “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 [alleged] misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

3

Moreover, while courts liberally construe pro se pleadings, 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).

In addition to these pleading rules, a complaint must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which states that a complaint must contain:

(a) A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain[:] (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief

“Thus, a pro se plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint must recite factual allegations which are sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a ‘short and plain' statement of a cause of action.” Johnson v. Koehler, No. 18-00807, 2019 WL 1231679, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2019).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to (1) Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); (2) the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.; (3) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d); (4) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.; (5) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42. U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.; (6) 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986; and (7) the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. (D.E. 4, at 1.) The Court will first address the issue of immunity, as it appears from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff has sued a number of Defendants that are immune from suit.

4

A. Immune Defendants

The Third Circuit ruled in Jaffee v. United States, 592 F.2d 712, 717-18 (3d Cir. 1979), that sovereign immunity bars claims against the United States and its federal agencies and officials, unless the United States explicitly waives its immunity. See, e.g., Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001); Lewal v. Ali, 289 Fed.Appx. 515, 516 (3d Cir. 2008); Belt v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 336 F.Supp.3d 428, 436 (D.N.J. 2018). Stated differently, “the United States is not subject to suit for constitutional torts, including the civil rights claims Plaintiff seeks to raise, and is entitled to absolute sovereign immunity in this matter.” See, e.g., Edward Pittman, v. United States, No. 21-10123, 2021 WL 2260518, at *2 (D.N.J. June 2, 2021) (footnote omitted). Similarly, federal agencies and entities, like the United States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals Service, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, are also immune from suit in civil rights matters, because they have not explicitly waived sovereign immunity. See e.g., Webb v. Desan, 250 Fed.Appx. 468, 471 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Gary v. Gardner, 445 Fed.Appx. 466-67 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that “the United States Marshals Service is entitled to sovereign immunity from suit” absent an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity); Hill v. United States, No. 21-03872, 2021 WL 3879101, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2021).

As to Plaintiff's state law claims, absent an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity, he cannot sue the federal government. United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990); Kabakjian v. United States, 267 F.3d 208, 211 (3d Cir. 2001). “Sovereign immunity not only protects the United States from liability, it deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction over claims against the United States.” Richards v. United States, 176 F.3d 652, 654 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983)). Consequently, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims, and the Court will dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against

5

the United States, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals Service, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

1. Claims Against Chief Judge Wolfson

Turning then to Chief Judge Wolfson, Plaintiff has sued her based on her pandemic related standing orders. In particular, Plaintiff takes issue with Chief Judge Wolfson's decisions to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, in light of the pandemic. Judges, however, are generally “immune from a suit for money damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991). The doctrine of judicial immunity stems from “the premise that a judge, in performing his or her judicial duties, should be free to act upon his or her convictions without threat of suit for damages.” Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir. 2000).

“When a judge has acted in his or her judicial capacity, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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