Wilson v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 30 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:20-cv-2272 (BRM) (ZNQ) |
| Parties | GREGORY T. WILSON, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP D. MURPHY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Before this Court is pro se Plaintiff Gregory T. Wilson's ("Plaintiff" or "Wilson") civil rights complaint removed by Defendants from state court. Presently pending is Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 7) and Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order ("TRO")/preliminary injunction (ECF No. 13). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part. Plaintiff's request for a TRO/preliminary injunction is DENIED.
The allegations of Plaintiff's complaint are construed as true for purposes of deciding Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is a state inmate incarcerated at the New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP") in Trenton, New Jersey.1 (See ECF No. 2-1 at 4.) He names as Defendants the following individuals: (1) Governor Philip D. Murphy; (2) Marcus O. Hicks - Commissioner of New Jersey Department of Corrections ("NJ DOC"); (3) Bettie Norris - Deputy Commissioner ofNJ DOC; (4) Bruce Davis - Administrator of NJSP; and (5) David Richards - Associate Administrator of NJSP.
Plaintiff's Complaint centers upon what will become of his body upon his death. Pursuant to state regulations cited by Plaintiff, if his deceased body is unclaimed by next of kin upon his death, the responsibility of respecting his religious burial rights is left to NJ DOC. (See ECF No. 2-1 at 13.) Plaintiff follows the Islamic faith. (See id. at 12-13.) Plaintiff submitted his last will and testament to NJ DOC which indicates his Islamic faith and its religious tenants do not permit cremation. (See id. at 38.) Plaintiff is concerned this religious burial belief will not be followed by NJ DOC upon his passing. He claims Defendants, by their policies and customs, have: (1) deprived Plaintiff from being free from cruel and unusual punishment; (2) deprived Plaintiff of equal protection and due process under the law; and (3) violated public policy and Plaintiff's First Amendment rights. He seeks to enjoin Defendants from denying Plaintiff his right to practice his religion by being buried in a fashion that comports with his religious beliefs.
Plaintiff filed his complaint in New Jersey Superior Court in late 2019. In March 2020, Defendants removed Plaintiff's complaint to this Court. (See ECF 1.) In April 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss (see ECF No. 12), and Defendants filed a reply. (See ECF No. 16.) Additionally, Plaintiff separately filed a request for a TRO/preliminary injunction. (See ECF No. 13.) This request relates to purported interference with Plaintiff's mail, not Plaintiff's underlying concern in his complaint about his burial. Defendants filed a response in opposition to the request for a TRO/preliminary injunction (see ECF No. 15), and Petitioner filed a reply. (See ECF No. 18 & 19.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, "courts accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). In other words, a complaint survives a motion to dismiss if it contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
"A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This "plausibility standard" requires that the complaint allege "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," but it "is 'not akin to a probability requirement.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Detailed factual allegations" are not required, but "more than an unadorned, the defendant-harmed-me accusation" must be pleaded; it must include "factual enhancements" and not just conclusory statements or a recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
"Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not 'show[n]'—'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). However, courts are "not compelled to accept 'unsupported conclusions and unwarrantedinferences,'" Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Schuylkill Energy Res. Inc. v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 113 F.3d 405, 417 (3d Cir. 1997)), nor "a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allian, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).
A court conducts a three-part analysis in analyzing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010). First, the court must "tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim." Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675). Second, the court should identify allegations that, "because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Id. at 131 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680). Finally, "where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief." Id. Additionally, it is worth noting that "courts generally consider only the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record." See Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Defendants make several arguments in their motion to dismiss; most notably:
The Court will address each in turn.
Defendants first argue the entire complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff lacks standing and/or the complaint is unripe. New Jersey Administrative Code § 10A: 16-7.5 is at the heart of this case and states as follows:
N.J. Admin. Code § 10A:16-7.5. As noted, Plaintiff is concerned his burial will not conform to his Islamic beliefs, notably no cremation. Defendants assert Plaintiff lacks standing because he has pled no facts to indicate his next of kin will not claim his body upon his passing. Therefore, according to Defendants, Plaintiff fails to allege § 10A:16-7.5(b) will even apply to Plaintiff.
Standing requires a plaintiff demonstrate that he or she has "(1) suffered an 'injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Clark v. Burger King Corp., 255 F. Supp. 2d 334, 341 (D.N.J. 2003). When a plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief, he or she must show a "real and immediate threat of injury in order to satisfy the injury in fact requirement." Id. at 342; see also City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103-104 (1983).
Plaintiff attaches his last will and testament to his complaint which has been received by NJ DOC. (See ECF No. 2-1 at 37-40.) As previously noted, this Court can consider exhibits attached to the complaint in analyzing a motion to dismiss. See Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 998 F.2d at 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Plaintiff specifically acknowledges there are no living relatives which need be notified upon his passing. (See ECF No. 2-1 at 37.) Relying on this document attached to Plaintiff's complaint, this Court rejects Defendants' argument Plaintiff fails to plead next of kin will not claim his body upon his death.
Nev...
To continue reading
Request your trial