Thomas v. Adams

Decision Date17 October 2014
Docket NumberCivil Action Nos. 10–5026 DRD,10–2113DRD.
Citation55 F.Supp.3d 552
PartiesThaddeus James THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. Shantay Brame ADAMS, et al., Defendants. Ronald Nash, Plaintiff, v. Chris Christie et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

55 F.Supp.3d 552

Thaddeus James THOMAS, Plaintiff
v.
Shantay Brame ADAMS, et al., Defendants.


Ronald Nash, Plaintiff
v.
Chris Christie et al., Defendants.

Civil Action Nos. 10–5026 DRD
10–2113DRD.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Signed Oct. 17, 2014.
Filed Oct. 20, 2014.


55 F.Supp.3d 553

Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq., Gibbons P.C., Newark, NJ, for Thaddeus James Thomas, Plaintiff.

Michael R. Yellin, Esq., Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., Hackensack, NJ, for Ronald Nash, Plaintiff.

David L. Dacosta and Daniel M. Vannella, Esqs., Office of the New Jersey Attorney General, Department of Law & Public Safety and R.J. Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ, for Defendants Christopher J. Christie, Paula T. Dow, Gary M. Lanigan,

55 F.Supp.3d 554

Jennifer Velez, John Main, Jonathan Poag, Merrill Main, Shantay Braim Adams and Jackie Ottino.

OPINION

APPLIES TO BOTH ACTIONS

DEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge:

Moving to dismiss Plaintiffs claims, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Defendants essentially maintain that Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim against them simply because Defendants are high-ranking supervising officials, and Plaintiffs' facts lack the particularities of Defendants' decision-making process and actions. This Court disagrees and will deny Defendants' motions, in part, and grant them in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Both Plaintiffs are civilly committed sexually violent predators (“SVPs”) confined under the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act (“NJSVPA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4–27.24. Both are now housed at the Special Treatment Unit (“STU”) of the East Jersey State Prison (“EJSP”). See County of Hudson v. State Dep't of Corr., 2009 WL 1361546, at *1 and n. 2, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, at *2 and n. 2 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. Apr. 22, 2009).1 Prior to being confined at the EJSP, the SVPs, Plaintiffs included, were confined at a Hudson County facility: at Kearny. See id. at *1–2, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, at *2–4. Since the events underlying the SVPs' transfer from Kearny to the EJSP STU are relevant to the issues at bar and have already been adjudicated in the state courts, with the DOC having had a full and fair opportunity to present its facts with regard to the DOC's obligation to find—and its search for—a transferee facility, it appears warranted to replicate the state courts' findings in detail:

In April 1999, the DOC designated the Kearny facility, which at the time housed 311 minimum security inmates, as the only available site for the temporary housing of SVPs. A few months later, the County of Hudson ... obtained an order that required the DOC to show cause why ... the DOC [should not be] enjoined from designating the Kearny facility as a location for the housing of SVPs. The trial court ... entered a judgment ... in favor of the County [but] stayed execution of the warrant of removal ... until September 29, 2000. On September 22, 2000, one week before the stay expired, Governor Christine Todd Whitman invoked her emergency powers, pursuant to the Disaster Control Act, and entered Executive Order 118.[T]he Kearny facility [was, under the Order,] designated as a facility appropriate for the temporary housing of SVPs by the DOC ... until ... other temporary facilities capable of and appropriate for the housing of all individuals committed pursuant to the [NJSVPA were located] or until a permanent facility capable of accommodating
55 F.Supp.3d 555
this population [was] constructed and operational.... On June 1, 2004, the County and the DOC filed a stipulation ... not to challenge Executive Order 118 until December 31, 2006. When that deadline passed—and another year as well—without an indication from the DOC as to when the SVPs would be removed from the Kearny facility, the County filed [another legal action. Eventually, the DOC and County agreed that the DOC would produce] the record ... sufficiently demonstrat[ing] what the DOC has done since 2000.

The record ... demonstrate[d] that the DOC has been active but not forceful—or, at least, not effectual—in finding a ... solution.... In August 1998, an architectural firm presented a plan to the DOC for the construction of a new 300–bed special treatment unit. State officials thereafter toured Minnesota's SVP facility, identifying several aspects of that facility that might prove beneficial to the DOC's existing proposal. Consideration was given in September 1998 to building a facility on the grounds of [EJSP] at an estimated cost of $ 20,000,000. Questions arose about the sufficiency of the estimate, followed by objections from the Township of Woodbridge, which commenced litigation and obtained an injunction halting the project. The following month, discussions began in other locations. A site in Maurice River Township was identified as having potential, but was eventually opposed by the township. And, in June 1999, a location in the Borough of Chesilhurst was considered. However, when State officials advised that a public hearing on the subject would be conducted, local residents and officials expressed intense opposition. Little occurred with regard to the creation of a new facility until 2001 when the Department of Treasury requested that the architectural firm update and revise its 1998 study. The firm conducted a series of programming workshops with various officials in an attempt to reach a consensus on the program's needs; its comprehensive plan was presented on February 7, 2002. That plan estimated the cost of the structure at more than $ 65,000,000. The firm also estimated that the 455–bed facility would require twenty-five acres and estimated the entire cost of the project, including planning, design, construction, permitting and other costs, at more than $ 82,000,000. The plan was viewed as too expensive. In January 2006, the proposal was reconsidered. By that time, the cost estimate had risen to more than $ 114,000,000 and was again deemed too expensive. Meanwhile, the adaptation of existing facilities was also explored. Starting in 2002, each of the DOC's facilities was examined and reviewed for this purpose and each deemed unsuitable for a variety of reasons. The DOC considered its Central Reception and Assignment Facility (“CRAF”) in Trenton, determined it required major improvements to all its buildings, as well as a 17,030 square foot extension at a total cost of more than $ 17,000,000, and then realized that utilization of CRAF would give rise to a need to find alternate housing for CRAF's inmates. Utilization of the Mid–State Correctional Facility was complicated by the fact that the facility [was] located on federal property. As part of its realignment and closure of Fort Dix, the federal government imposed upon the property it had transferred to the DOC several conditions, which apparently raised concerns about a reversion of the property should it be used to house SVPs. The DOC also harbored concerns about the facility's size
55 F.Supp.3d 556
and perimeter security. The grounds of the Albert C. Wagner Youth Correctional Facility in Bordentown consisted of one structure found to be too large (consisting of 846 beds), and other structures found too small. The Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel, which is the State's only sex offender prison, was considered. But the proposed facility, if located there, would require subdivision from the remaining population [under the state law], and another location for the prisoners there housed. [In fact, a]ny use of existing correctional facilities would [have] necessarily require[d] the relocation of current inmates, which [would] generate [an additional] cost to the DOC. The DOC also found problems with Bayside State Prison in Leesburg and Ancora Psychiatric Hospital in Winslow Township [since] Bayside consist[ed] of a 1,221–bed facility, deemed too large for the SVP population, and a farm with open barracks and cottage-type housing units, [was] deemed too insecure for these purposes. Ancora consist[ed] of two separate housing units, with a total of 350 beds, separated by a walking and open recreation space, [and also was] deemed insecure and unsuitable. The DOC reconsidered CRAF in 2006[but] Jones Farm, a 282–bed satellite unit of CRAF was rejected as too small. On the other hand, [the EJSP] in Rahway, New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, Northern State Prison in Newark, Riverfront State Prison in Camden, and Edna Mahan Correctional Facility in Clinton, were considered too large. The main structure of Mountainview Youth Correctional Facility in Annandale was also considered too large, and its two satellite facilities were considered too small. Other existing facilities presented similar problems. It is not surprising, in light of the nature of the assorted insufficiencies of the DOC's many facilities, that the County compares the DOC's dilemma in identifying an appropriate site to Goldilocks' quandary in “The Story of the Three Bears.” That is, the DOC has found some facilities too large, some too small, none just right.
[As years went by], the DOC continued to explore
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Traylor v. Lanigan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • May 31, 2017
    ...does he allege that his prescribed treatment has been denied, reduced, or changed for non-medical reasons. See e.g., Thomas v. Adams, 55 F. Supp. 3d 552, 576 (D.N.J. 2014) ("when a prescribed medical treatment is denied, reduced, or changed for non-medical reasons, including financial, admi......
  • Thorpe v. City of Phila.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 31, 2020
    ...abolish supervisory liability." Burgos v. City of Phila., 270 F. Supp. 3d 788, 795 n. 20 (E.D. Pa. 2017); see also Thomas v. Adams, 55 F. Supp. 3d 552, 568 (D.N.J. 2014) ("Iqbal did not change any aspect of substantive law. Nor did Iqbal create a liability exception for the defendants fortu......
  • Singleton v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., Civil Action No. 16-2585 (PGS)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • July 5, 2016
    ...quotation marks omitted). Claims of negligence or medical malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference. See Thomas v. Adams, 55 F.Supp.3d 552, 576 (D.N.J. 2014) (internal citations omitted); Singletary v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 266 F.3d 186, 193 (3d Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff alleges......
  • Burgos v. City of Phila.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 6, 2017
    ...supervisor acts with the mental state necessary to establish the underlying constitutional tort") (citation omitted); Thomas v. Adams , 55 F.Supp.3d 552, 568 (D.N.J. 2014) ("Iqbal did not change any aspect of substantive law. Nor did Iqbal create a liability exception for the defendants for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Part Two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 65, November 2015
    • November 1, 2015
    ...Correctional Complex, Green River Correctional Complex, Kentucky) U.S. District Court CIVIL COMMITMENT SEX OFFENDER Thomas v. Adams, 55 F.Supp.3d 552 (D.N.J. 2014). Civilly-committed sexually violent predators (SVP) brought an action against corrections officials, and other defendants, chal......
  • Part Two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 65, November 2015
    • November 1, 2015
    ...his claim. (Alternative Custody Program, California) U.S. District Court SEX OFFENDER REMOVAL FROM PROGRAM DUE PROCESS Thomas v. Adams, 55 F.Supp.3d 552 (D.N.J. 2014). Civilly-committed sexually violent predators (SVP) brought an action against corrections officials, and other defendants, c......
  • Part One: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 65, November 2015
    • November 1, 2015
    ...Commitment, Sex Offender PROGRAMS-PRISONER: Sex Offender, Removal from Program, Due Process TRANSFERS: Mental Health Thomas v. Adams, 55 F.Supp.3d 552 (D.N.J. 2014). Civilly-committed sexually violent predators (SVP) brought an action against corrections officials, and other defendants, cha......

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