Young v. Avilez

• Decision Date: 17 January 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 22-5943 (EP) (MAH)
• Parties: JEROME LAMAR YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. OSCAR AVILEZ, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

JEROME LAMAR YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
OSCAR AVILEZ, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-5943 (EP) (MAH)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

January 17, 2023

Not For Publication

OPINION

EVELYN PADIN, U.S.D.J.

Pro se Plaintiff Jerome Lamar Young, a pretrial detainee presently detained in the Hudson County Correctional Center (“HCCC”) in Kearny, New Jersey, seeks to file this Complaint against Defendants Oscar Avilez, Director of Medical Michael (last name unknown), and HCCC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. D.E. 1. At this time, the Court must review the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 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 below, the Court will allow the complaint to proceed in part.^[1]

1

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this complaint regarding the conditions of his confinement across seven “claims” about his time in the HCCC. In the first claim, he alleges that Director Avilez “locked me and other Inmates in [their] cells for 48-60 hours straight without recreation or showers every Friday - Sunday ....” D.E. 1 at 5. He claims he was personally denied showers and recreations “from June 16, 2022 until the end of July.” Id. The second claim alleges that HCCC does not screen detainees “for wounds or sores upon admission.” Id. The third claim alleges that Plaintiff was locked in a medical unit cell for more than 24 hours without a shower. Id. at 6. In Claim Four, Plaintiff alleges he had an open Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”) infection that “[e]very nurse on the first shift failed to clean . . . and bandage it up . . . .” Id. Plaintiff informed staff that the wound was “highly transmissible,” but he did not receive medical attention until officers “compelled the medical personnel to perform their duties.” Id. Claims Five and Six expand on this allegation, alleging that a doctor was deliberately indifferent to the open and obvious wounds on Plaintiffs leg and scrotum. Finally, Claim Seven alleges that Plaintiff was denied several meal trays.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Section 1915(e)(2) requires a court to review complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, 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. This action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is incarcerated.

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. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,

2

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 misconduct alleged.'” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “[A] pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

III. ANALYSIS

A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights. Section 1983 provides in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Thus, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). The Court will dismiss HCCC as a defendant because a jail is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Crawford v. McMillian, 660 Fed.Appx. 113,116 (3d Cir. 2016) (“[T]he prison is not an entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”); Grabow v. Southern State Corr. Facility, 726 F.Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility is not a “person” under § 1983).

Claim One alleges Defendant Avilez deprived Plaintiff of showers and recreation every weekend for a month, and Claim Three alleges Plaintiff was unable to shower or exercise for more

3

than 24 hours. “‘Under the Fourteenth Amendment, when a pretriad detainee complains about the conditions of his confinement, courts are to consider whether the conditions ‘amount to punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with law.' ” Tapp v. Proto, 718 F.Supp.2d 598, 617 (E.D. Pa.) (quoting Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F.3d 150, 158 (3d Cir. 2005)), aff'd, 404 Fed.Appx. 563 (3d Cir. 2010). “[I]n determining in the present case whether conditions at the Jail are such as to amount to punishment, which would violate the due process rights of pre-trial detainees, we must ask, first, whether any legitimate purposes are served by these conditions, and second, whether these conditions are rationally related to these purposes.” Union Cnty. Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984,992 (3d Cir. 1983). The Court must then “inquire as to whether these conditions cause inmates to endure such genuine privations and hardship over an extended period of time, that the adverse conditions become excessive in relation to the purposes assigned to them.” Tapp, 718 F.Supp.2d at 617 (citing Hubbard, 399 F.3d at 159).

Prison officials have a duty “to provide ‘humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.'” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994))...