Bayete v. Ricci

CLD-225 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1372
___________
KOFI BAYETE,
Appellant
v.
MICHELLE RICCI, Administrator of New Jersey State Prison;
DONALD MEE, Associate Administrator of New Jersey State Prison;
ALLAN MARTIN, Medical Doctor;
S.C.O. BROOKS; S.C.O. SEAISLE JONES;
DR. ALLEN MARTIN, (formerly) of New Jersey State Prison,
now working at South Woods State Prison;
NURSE SUE ANDERSON; JOHN DOE
____________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 3-08-cv-03941)
District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 12, 2012
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 25, 2012)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Kofi Bay-e-te 1 appeals the District Court’s order dismissing a
complaint he filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because this appeal presents no
substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment pursuant to
3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
In 2008 Bay-e-te filed a complaint alleging violations of his rights under the
Eighth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act
(“NJCRA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:6-2(c). He claims to have suffered cruel and unusual
punishment at the hands of various defendants arising out of their alleged deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs during a lockdown in 2006. He claims that
systematic, atypical, and significant delay and denial of medical care with respect to a
foot condition at that time violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and the
NJCRA, and that this same delay and denial also violated his rights under the Due
Process Clause. Specifically, pursuant to his original complaint he claims that defendants
Ricci and Mee as prison administrators, and Martin as a prison doctor, caused his
cellulitis as a result of their failure to provide adequate medical treatment; that failure, he
claims, constitutes deliberate indifference to his urgent medical needs, cruel and unusual
1
Because appellant has expressed a preference for this spelling of his surname, despite
2
punishment, and atypical and significant hardship in violation of his rights under the
Eighth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the NJCRA. He further claims,
pursuant to an amended complaint, that defendants Jones, Brooks, Doe, Anderson, and
Martin subjected him to lockdown conditions and deprived him of medical treatment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the NJCRA. Bay-e-te
claims that Jones and Brooks, as correctional officers, failed to safeguard his rights,
privileges, and immunities from unreasonable abridgement; that Doe as a doctor and
Anderson as a nurse provided him medicine that his medical file showed he should not
have received; and that Dr. Martin failed to examine him sufficiently in response to
complaints of pain during the lockdown.
In July 2009, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss Bay-e-te’s federal
claims against defendants Ricci, Mee, and Martin in their official capacities. In January
2011, the District Court granted those defendants’ motion for summary judgment in their
individual capacities. The court subsequently granted defendant Seaisle Jones’s motion
to dismiss and, in January 2012, dismissed Bay-e-te’s claims against the remaining
defendants, Brooks and Anderson. Bay-e-te appeals.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of orders dismissing
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and granting summary judgment is plenary. Phillips v.
using “Bayete” in his original filings, we will use it in this opinion.
3
Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(6)); State Auto Prop.
& Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pro Design, P.C., 566 F.3d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment).
We also exercise plenary review over a district court’s legal conclusions as to statute of
limitations issues, United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137, 168 (3d Cir. 2008), but we
accept the district court’s underlying factual findings regarding the statute of limitations
unless clearly erroneous. Id.III.
We first consider the District Court’s dismissal of Bay-e-te’s federal claims
against defendants Michelle Ricci, Donald Mee, and Dr. Allan Martin in their official
capacities, and its subsequent grant of their motions for summary judgment in their
individual capacities. When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a court must accept as true
all material allegations, read the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
decide whether, under any reasonable understanding of the complaint, the plaintiff may
be entitled to relief. Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 2012). To
survive such a motion, a complaint must include sufficient allegations, taken as true, to
state a facially plausible claim to relief. Id.The Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits for damages against state officers in
their official capacities, Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991). Moreover, state officers
sued in their official capacities for money damages are not “persons” within the meaning
4
of Section 1983. Id. at 27. Consequently, the District Court correctly dismissed Bay-e-
te’s complaint against defendants in their official capacities.
A party moving for summary judgment must show that there exists no real issue as
to any material fact and that the movant is thus entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). On appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss or for
summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 112 (3d Cir. 2002), but the party opposing summary
judgment “may not rest upon . . . mere allegations.” Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d
228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001). We agree with the District Court that defendants showed that
there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact with respect to Bay-e-te’s claims
against them in their individual capacities.
In the context of claims based on medical care, a prison official cannot be found
liable under the Eighth Amendment unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the official was
deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976). 2 Supervisor liability requires a showing of personal involvement in the alleged
wrongs. Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 135 (3d Cir. 2001). A violation of any
due process rights a prisoner may have under the Fourteenth Amendment requires a
2
The same applies for the claims pursuant to the NJCRA, because the test for cruel and
unusual punishment under the New Jersey state Constitution “is generally the same as
that applied under the federal Constitution.” State v. Ramseur, 524. A.2d 188, 210 (N.J.
1987).
5
showing of “atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of
prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484.
Defendants Ricci and Mee showed that they did not implement a policy
prohibiting medical treatment or transfer to the medical clinic or an outside hospital
during the lockdown, that other inmates were in fact taken to the prison medical clinic
and outside hospitals during the lockdown, and that Bay-e-te himself was seen by
medical-care providers during the lockdown. Because Bay-e-te responded with nothing
more than unsupported assertions, he was unable to create a genuine dispute as to
material facts as to those defendants.
Similarly, Defendant Martin showed that he met with Bay-e-te during the
lockdown, that he prescribed a painkiller for the pain that he complained of, and that
Bay-e-te did not mention the pain in his foot that he has subsequently complained of.
Again, Bay-e-te responded with nothing more than unsupported assertions. Accordingly,
the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Ricci, Mee, and
Martin.
IV.
We next consider the dismissal of defendants Jones and Brooks. In New Jersey,
the statute of limitations for civil rights actions brought under Section 1983 is two years.
Dique v. New Jersey State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010). A limitations
defense may be raised by Rule 12(b)(6) motion provided that the time alleged in the
6
statement of the claims shows on its face that the cause of action has been brought
beyond the statute of limitations. Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135 (3d Cir. 2002).
Jones and Brooks moved for dismissal because the events that gave rise to Bay-e-
te’s claims against them involve a prison lockdown that occurred in August and
September 2006. Bay-e-te did not name Jones or Brooks until over three years had
passed, in February 2010. Accordingly, the District Court’s dismissal of Bay-e-te’s
claims against Jones and Brooks as time-barred was proper. 3
V.
Thus finding no substantial question raised by this appeal, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3
Dismissal of the remaining defendant, Anderson, was also proper. As the District Court
noted, she had never been served and, at the time Bay-e-te filed his complaint, it was
clear from the allegations that the statute of limitations had run. See, e.g., Ray v. Kertes,
285 F.3d 287, 297 (3d Cir. 2002) (sua sponte dismissal is proper where the defense is
manifest on the face of the complaint). The John Doe defendant was never specifically
named or made part of the action. We note that the claims against him are as untimely as
those against Anderson.
7