JOYNER v. HANSSEN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DANIEL JOYNER,

Plaintiff,

oo Civil Action No. 20-16230 (MAS) (DRA)

Vv.

OPINION

D. HANSSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

SHIPP, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s review of Plaintiff Daniel Joyner’s

amended complaint.! (ECF No. 2.) Because Plaintiff has previously been granted in forma

pauperis status, this Court is required to screen Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any claim which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief,

or seeks relief from an immune defendant. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's complaint

shall be dismissed without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

At the time of the incidents giving rise to Plaintiff's complaint, he was a state pre-trial

detainee confined in the Monmouth County Correctional Institution on pending criminal charges.

(ECF No. 2-1 at 3-4.) Prior to September 2020, Plaintiff was housed in a unit referred to as E-

' The Clerk of the Court filed ECF No. 2 as an “exhibit” to Plaintiff's original complaint. That

document, however, is clearly an amended complaint which reiterates the claims listed in the

original complaint and expands upon them. This Court therefore considered ECF No. 2 to be

Plaintiff's operative amended complaint.

Dorm. (Ud. at 6.) While housed on E-Dorm, Plaintiff apparently drafted some form of legal

document which he saved to E-Dorm’s computer. (/d. at 4-6.) E-Dorm, however, was closed by

the jail, and Plaintiff was moved to an infirmary unit due to health issues. (ECF No. 2 at 6.)

Plaintiff was later moved to another unit designated J-3. (d.).

Following his transfer out of E-Dorm, in September 2020, Plaintiff filed numerous

grievances seeking to be allowed to retrieve the legal work he saved on E-Dorm’s computer. (ECF

No. 2-1 at 5-6.) Defendant Hanssen, who apparently reviewed those grievances, did not grant

Plaintiff access to his computer until “over 30 plus days” later, when Plaintiffs criminal judge

requested he be permitted to access the computer and retrieve the unspecified legal work. Cd. at

4-6; ECF No. 2 at 5-6.) Following the judge’s request, Plaintiff was escorted back to the closed

E-Dorm, but discovered that “the computer... . was completely wiped clean[,] even the

motherboard was erased.” (ECF No. 2-1 at 6-7.) Plaintiff believes that this “reeks of a[n] inside

job of purposeful destruction,” and suggests that Lt. Hanssen was in some way involved in the

wiping of the computer. (/d.; ECF No. 2 at 4.) Plaintiff therefore seeks to raise claims against

Hanssen and the jail for both refusing to respond to his grievances, and for the deletion of his work

saved on the defunct E-Dorm unit’s computer, which he believes amounts to a denial of access to

the courts. (ECF No. 2 at 4-6; ECF No. 2-1 at 5-7.)

IL LEGAL STANDARD

Because Plaintiff shall be granted in forma pauperis status, this Court is required to screen

his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to the statute, this 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. /d “The

legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v.

Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)).

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a district court is

required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences

from those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny,

515 F.3d 224, 228 (Gd Cir. 2008), but need not accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual

allegations. Papasan vy. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). A complaint need not contain “detailed

factual allegations” to survive a motion to dismiss, but must contain “more than an unadorned, the-

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A

complaint “that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action will not do,’” and a complaint will not “suffice” if it provides only “’naked assertion[s]’

devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Jd (quoting Bell Atlantic vy. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555, 557 (2007)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Jd (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “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.” Jd. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A complaint that provides facts

“merely consistent with” the defendant’s liability it “stops short of the line between possibility and

plausibility” and will not survive review under Rule 12(b)(6). Jd. (quoting Twombly, 555 U.S. at

557). While pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed in conducting such an analysis, pro se

litigants must still “allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown

Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).

Ti. DISCUSSION

In his complaint, Plaintiff raises two federal civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against Defendant Hanssen and his employer, the Monmouth County Correctional

Institution: first, a claim asserting that Hanssen violated Plaintiff's rights by declining to respond

to his grievances; and second, a claim asserting that Hanssen denied him access to the courts by

“deleting” Plaintiff's unspecified legal work which was saved on the E-Dorm computer. Turning

to the first claim, the Court notes that prisoners have no federal right to an inmate grievance system,

nor do they have a right to any particular response to any grievances the state permits them to file.

See, e.g., Roberts vy. Aviles, No. 10-5916, 2012 WL 603790, at *1 n. 4 (D.N.J. Feb. 16, 2012);

Wilson v. Horn, 971 F. Supp. 943, 947 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd, 142 F.3d 430 Gd Cir. 1998); see also

Adams vy. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (“the Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance

procedures or access to any such procedure voluntarily established by a state”). Plaintiffs first

claim — in which he asserts he was denied appropriate responses to his grievances — therefore fails

to state a plausible federal civil rights claim and must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on

which relief may be granted.

In his remaining claim, Plaintiff asserts that Hanssen denied him access to the courts by

“wiping” the computer contained in the defunct E-Dorm, which deleted unspecified legal work

Plaintiff had saved on that computer while housed in E-Dorm. While prisoners have a fundamental

right of access to the courts, a prisoner seeking to raise a § 1983 claim asserting a denial of access

to the courts must plead facts indicating that they suffered an actual injury as a result of the alleged

denied access. Tinsley v. Giorla, 369 F. App’x 378, 381 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518

343, 346, 352-54 (1996)). To plead an actual injury, a plaintiff must plead facts which

“demonstrate[] that a “nonfrivolous’ and ‘arguable’ claim was lost.” Jd. (quoting Christopher vy.

Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002)). Here, Plaintiff does not identify the legal work that was

stored on the E-Dorm computer, nor does he connect the deletion of this unspecified work to any

claim, motion, or defense which was lost as a result of the deletion of this legal work. Plaintiff has

therefore failed to plead actual injury, and his access to the courts claim must therefore be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiff’s amended

complaint shall therefore be dismissed without prejudice in its entirety for failure to state a claim

for which relief may be granted.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed above, Plaintiff's amended complaint (ECF No. 2) is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety. An order consistent with this Opinion

will be entered.

MK edhe

MICHAEL A. S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

.