Reeves v. Hemsley
| Decision Date | 20 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-14061 (JMV/MF) |
| Parties | MICHAEL DUKE REEVES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL L. HEMSLEY, M.D., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Michael Duke Reeves, proceeding pro se, seeks to bring a federal civil rights complaint. (See Am. Compl., DE 3.) At this time,1 the Court must review Mr. Reeves' pleading, 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, Reeves' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 deliberate indifference to medical needs claim may proceed as against Defendant Nurse Karen Scheidewig only. The following claims are dismissed with prejudice: (1) all of Reeves' current civil rights claims against Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement i/p/a Immigration Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); and (2) Reeves' violation of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") claim, as against all defendants. All other claims are dismissed without prejudice.
The Court will also now address two other pending applications filed by Mr. Reeves: (1) his motion to amend his pleading to assert additional tort claims against ICE (at DEs 9 and 12); and (2) a letter application requesting that the undersigned recuse himself from this matter (at DE 15). For the reasons explained infra, both applications are denied.
II. REEVES' RECUSAL APPLICATION
Preliminarily, the undersigned notes that I also presided over Mr. Reeves' separate habeas action challenging his ongoing immigration detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Reeves v. Green, Civil. No. 18-15063. On April 12, 2019, I issued a final order and opinion denying habeas relief to Reeves in that case.2 Shortly thereafter, Reeves, on or about May 13, 2019, filed an application requesting that I recuse myself from the present civil action "due to [a] conflict of interest." (DE 15.) Reeves avers that there are "interrelated" issues between this case and his § 2241 matter, and thus, because I "already sided with [the] defendant[s] in [his] habeas action[, I am] likely to side with the [defendants] again in [this action]." (Id.) Although Reeves expressly notes that "[I am] a very ethical person[,]" he nonetheless "feel[s] that [his] interest will be better served by a different District Judge." (Id.)
A determination regarding recusal lies within the sound discretion of the judge managing the matter. United States v. Wilensky, 757 F.2d 594, 599-600 (3d Cir. 1985). Two federal statutes govern the circumstances in which a judge should recuse himself. The first statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455, provides, in pertinent part, that: "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably he questioned." Id. at § 455(a). "The test for recusal under § 455(a) is whether a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably bequestioned." Allen v. Parkland Sch. Dist., 230 F. App'x 189, 193 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The second, 28 U.S.C. § 144, mandates that a judge recuse himself "[w]henever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party." Id. at § 144. A "substantial burden is imposed on the party [seeking recusal under § 144] to demonstrate that the judge is not impartial." Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., No. 05-4813, 2011 WL 1337513, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2011) (citation omitted). "In satisfying this burden, the movant must make a three-fold showing: (1) the facts must be material and stated with particularity; (2) the facts must be such that, if true they would convince a reasonable man that a bias exists; (3) the facts must show the bias is personal, as opposed to judicial, in nature." Id. (citing United States v. Thompson, 483 F.2d 527, 528 (3d Cir. 1973)).
Reeves presents no credible basis for recusal. To be clear, the fact that I denied habeas relief to Reeves in his separate § 2241 matter, standing alone, does not require my disqualification from this action; this remains true even if Mr. Reeves' two cases have some factual overlap and even if Mr. Reeves is dissatisfied with my final decision in his other "interrelated" matter. The reality of the judicial process is that at least one party in nearly every case walks away from the courthouse dissatisfied with a judge's legal rulings; Reeves' habeas case is no exception. The role of this Court is to resolve lawsuits in a fair, objective, and impartial manner, in accordance with the law, and based on the facts before it. That is precisely what the undersigned did in Reeves' § 2241 matter and that is also what the undersigned will do in Reeves' present case.
Again, Reeves appears to seek my recusal in the present case simply because I ruled against him in his prior habeas matter. While Reeves may disagree with my legal rulings in his § 2241 action, he has not presented any evidence or other objective information which even marginallysuggests that I have any personal prejudice against him or other biases that would impugn my ability to dispassionately rule on his claims in this matter. Instead, Reeves - in his own recusal application - expressly notes that I am "a very ethical person." (DE 15.) Mr. Reeves' recusal request is accordingly denied. The Court now turns to the matter at hand.
III. BACKGROUND
Reeves' present civil action arises out of the allegedly unconstitutional actions committed by various state and federal officials against him since June 25, 2018, i.e., the date on which his present period of immigration detention at Bergen County Jail ("BCJ") began. Reeves' pertinent pleading, i.e., his October 19, 2018 amended complaint,3 formally identifies the following defendants: (1) Michael L. Hemsley, M.D.; (2) Corizon Health; (3) Bergen County Jail Medical; (4) New Bridge Medical Center f/k/a Bergen Regional Medical Center ("New Bridge"); (5) Nurse Karen Scheidewig; (6) Nurse Nia Mazzacca; (7) Nurse Stacey Melson; (8) Board of Medical Examiners; (9) ICE; (10) ICE officer Michael Kolarcit; (11) Sheriff Michael Saudino; (12) Executive Undersheriff George Euono; (13) Undersheriff Robert Colaneri; (14) Undersheriff Joseph Hornyak; (15) Undersheriff Brian Smith; (16) Warden Steven Ahrendt; (17) Lieutenant Paul Allegretta; (18) Sergeant Romero; (19) Officer John Thompson; (20) Officer S. Hajen; (21); ABC Entities 1-10; (22) John Does 1-10; and (23) Jane Does 1-10. (DE 3 at 1-2.)
On June 25, 2018, Reeves was arrested by certain unidentified ICE agents. Reeves claims that those agents dislocated and otherwise injured his right shoulder during that arrest. (Id. at 5.) Reeves was immediately thereafter taken to an unnamed medical facility where doctors performed a surgical procedure that failed "to relocate his shoulders [sic]." (Id.) "He was[, at that time,] prescribed follow-up testing and evaluation on suspicion of fractured rotator cuff and tornlabrum[,]" and his right arm was placed into a sling. (Id. at 5-6.) Reeves was then transported to BCJ, at which point "a nurse believed to be Nurse Scheidewig" confiscated his sling notwithstanding that "the need to keep his should protected and supported was [both] obvious" and "noted in the release[] instructions" provided to BCJ. (Id. at 6, 10.) Between June 25, 2018 and June 28, 2018, Reeves made numerous requests to have his sling returned; all such requests were ignored. (Id. at 6.) Reeves claims that the confiscation of his sling left his right arm dangling and unsupported, and that this resulted in him experiencing additional pain and further aggravating his right shoulder injuries. (Id. at 10.)
On June 29, 2019, Reeves' right shoulder was again dislocated.4 (Id. at 6.) "He spent several hours in excruciating pain before he was taken to New Bridge Medical Center[,]" where Dr. Nicholas Dalaney performed a second surgery, that again, failed to properly "relocate" his shoulder. (Id.) Unidentified individuals at New Bridge ordered testing and a follow up visit in two weeks. (Id.) Mr. Reeves, however, was not taken back to New Bridge "until about 82 days later, [on] September 17, 2018." (Id.) His arm remained in a sling during this 82-day period. (Id. at 11.)
During Reeves' follow-up appointment at New Bridge on September 17, 2018, Dr. Dalaney recommended that Reeves "have a MRI Arthrogram to evaluate for cuff, labrum and glenoid injury." (Id. at 6.) When Reeves returned to BCJ later that day, he requested a copy of his medical records from Bergen County Jail. He claims that Dr. Hemsley and Nurse Melson, at thattime, "manufactured fake medical records and falsified information."5 Reeves avers that "Dr. Hemsley altered the records to avoid liability [because he] did not want to be accountable for not providing any therapy as had been ordered." (Id. at 7-8.) On October 8, 2018, "Reeves notified Warden Ahrendt about the crime involving falsifying of medical records and forgery." (Id. at 6.) On the following day, "Warden Ahrendt informed Mr. Reeves that the matter [was referred to BCJ] Internal Affairs for investigation and appropriate action." (Id. at 6.)
On October 9, 2018, Reeves was taken New Bridge for magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") of his right shoulder area. (Id.) The MRI revealed degenerative arthritis in Reeves' right shoulder, a Hill-Sachs deformity, a torn interior labrum, partial tear in his bicep tendon, and a torn rotator cuff. (Id. at 7.) On October 15, 2018, Mr. Reeves again met with Dr. Dalaney. (Id.) During that meeting, Dr. Dalaney indicated that Reeves needed to have a third surgery, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial