# RODRIGUES v. MAIN

> District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10277093

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** May 31, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10277093

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding at the summary judgment stage that the restriction of the plaintiff's religious rights due to his election to enter into protective custody is rationally related to a legitimate penological interest
- discussing rights of pretrial criminal detainees
- reversing grant of a motion to dismiss and remanding for development of the factual record

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LOUIS RODRIGUES, Civil Action No. 19-14708 (MCA)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v.
SPECIAL TREATMENT UNIT, et al., :
Defendants.

This matter has been opened to the Court by Defendant Dr. Merrill Main’s filing of a

motion to dismiss Plaintiff Louis Rodrigues’ complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.

(ECF No. 70.) For the reason stated in this Memorandum Opinion, the motion to dismiss is

denied without prejudice.
1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

a. Factual Background
The Court considers only the allegations relevant to Defendant Main. Plaintiff is an

involuntarily committed person pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”),

N.LS.A. 30:4-27.24, et seq., and has filed a civil action arising from his conditions of

confinement at the Special Treatment Unit (“STU”). Plaintiff was involuntarily committed on

September 18, 2014, and was civilly committed on February 19, 2015. (ECF No. 1, Complaint

at 35-36.) Plaintiff's Complaint asserts civil rights claims against Defendant Main and others

related to his placement in the South Housing Unit and his status as Group Map and Treatment

Refusal (“TR”).
According to the Complaint, the STU has four housing units—East, West, North, and

es ea 85) Each housing unit and the Annex have

rooms to conduct activities and social events. (/d.) The South Housing Unit consists of three

floors, and the third floor is used to house residents whose status is Temporary Close Custody

(“TCC”), Room MAP, Tier MAP, and/or Group MAP. (id. at ] 86.) The first and second floors

are used to house residents whose status is TR and Group MAP. (id. at987.) According to the

Complaint, the STU also houses residents whose status is TR and Group MAP throughout the

facility and not exclusively on the South Housing Unit. Plaintiff states that his status is GP/TR.

(Id. at § 89.)
On December 26, 2018, Defendant Sims, an Assistant Superintendent of the STU, issued

a Memorandum notifying Sergeant Walker that Plaintiff was to be moved to the West Housing

Unit. The very next day, Plaintiff was returned to the South Housing Unit. (id. at ff] 39-40.)

Plaintiff asserts that he was returned to the South Housing Unit without explanation and at the

direction of Defendants Main, Corniel, and Cheappetta. (Id. at JJ 40-41.)
Plaintiff asserts that his continued placement in the South Housing Unit has resulted in

the complete denial of religious services. (See Complaint at ff] 59-67.) With respect to this

claim, Plaintiff asserts that supervisory Defendants Main, Slaughter, Raupp, and Sims have

instituted a policy preventing residents, including Plaintiff, from participating in religious

services held in other locations of the STU. Although Defendants Slaughter, Raupp, and Sims,

have maintained that a non-denominational chaplain regularly visits the South Housing Unit,

Plaintiff asserts that for the past two years, a chaplain has visited only two or three times. (/d. at

4 63.) Plaintiff alleges that he informed Defendants Main, Slaughter, Sims, Raupp, and Collins

that his First Amendment rights were being violated, and these Defendants refused to rescind the

decision denying Plaintiff's ability to participate in weekly services in the Annex. (/d. at { 67.)
Plaintiff also alleges that he exhausted several grievances with respect to this complete denial of

religious services. (See id. at ff] 65-66.)
Plaintiff also asserts that residents on the South Housing Unit are restricted from
participating in social events, buying DVD movies and video games from source of sale vendors,
and renting DVD movies and video games available from the STU. The social event restriction

went into effect two years ago and was allegedly instituted by Defendants Main, the Clinical

Director of the STU, and Simms, a program coordinator. On or about May 28, 2019, Plaintiff

submitted a remedy form regarding the denial of social events, but no relief was provided. (ECF
No. 1, Complaint at {{[ 68-72.) The policy restricting the purchase of DVDs and video games is

unwritten and went into effect on May 15, 2019. It was allegedly instituted by Defendant Hunt,

a staff member at the STU, and approved by Defendant Main. (See id. at {J 74-77.) On May 28,
Plaintiff submitted a remedy form regarding this policy, but no relief was provided. (/d. at { 78.)
On June 18, 2019, Defendant Hunt verbally notified South Housing Unit residents that

they are not permitted to rent facility DVDs or video games. The policy was instituted by
Defendant Hunt and approved by Defendant Main. Plaintiff asserts that this policy was
instituted by Defendant Hunt due to remedy forms submitted by residents in response to the May
15, 2019 policy restricting the purchase of DVDs and video games. (id. at [J 80-84.) According

to the Complaint, other Housing units in the STU and the Annex are not affected by these

policies despite the fact that the STU actively houses residents whose status is TR and Group
Map throughout the facility and not exclusively on the South Housing Unit. (/d. at 88-89.)

b. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on or about July 9, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Based on his
affidavit of indigence, the Court granted Plaintifi’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) and ordered the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint. The Court then screened the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and proceeded the Complaint in part and
dismissed it in part. As to Defendant Main, the Court proceeded the First Amendment religious
exercise claim and the “class of one” equal protection claims regarding the alleged policies of
denying social events and denying the purchase/rental of DVDs and video games.! (See ECF No.

4 at 15.)
On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against all Defendants.

(ECF No. 13). Defendants Crystal Raupp and Marc Simms filed an Answer to the Complaint on

May 29, 2020. (ECF No. 15). On September 28, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order
denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against the remaining
Defendants. (ECF No. 31).
The Deputy Attorney General representing the other Defendants entered a notice of

appearance on behalf of Defendant Main on February 28, 2022. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff filed a

letter requesting entry of default judgment against Defendant Main on April 20, 2022. (ECF No.

54). On April 25, 2022, Defendant Main sought an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's
Complaint. (ECF No. 57). On April 27, 2022, the Clerk entered default against Defendant Main

for failure to plead or otherwise defend.

| With respect to Defendant Main, the Court also proceeded the claims for injunctive relief in
connection with the religious exercise and “class of one” claims, and the NJCRA claims that are

On May 12, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff's motion
seeking entry of default judgment against Defendant Main as premature and directing Defendant
Main to file and serve a formal motion on or before May 23, 2022, for relief from the default
entered against him by the Clerk and/or an extension of time to file a responsive pleading. (ECF
No. 59).
On May 23, 2022, Defendant Main filed a Motion to Vacate the Clerk’s Entry of Default
and Extend Time to File a Responsive Pleading. (ECF No. 60). Plaintiff opposed Defendant
Main’s motion, and Defendant Main filed a reply. (See ECF Nos. 63, 64). On August 29, 2022,
the Magistrate Judge entered an Order and Opinion granting Defendant Main’s Motion to Vacate
the Clerk’s Entry of Default and Extend Time to File a Responsive Pleading. (ECF No. 66).
This motion to dismiss followed. (ECF No. 70.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In resolving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, under Rule 12(b)(6), “‘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. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)); see also Zimmerman

v. Corbett, 873 F.3d 414, 417-18 (3d Cir. 2017), cert. denied 138 S. Ct. 2623 (2018); Revell v.
Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010).
Asa pro se litigant, Plaintiff is entitled to liberal construction of his complaint. See
Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Sugarman, 659 F.3d 258, 265 (3d Cir. 2011). To survive dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint “must contain 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)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “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.” Ja.
Generally, “a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may not consider matters

extraneous to the pleadings.” In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 Gd
Cir. 1997). In resolving a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court can
consider the allegations of the complaint as well as any “documents that are attached to or
submitted with the complaint, ... any matters incorporated by reference or integral to the claim,
items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders, {and] items appearing in the
record of the case.” Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006)
(brackets in original). Where a document is “integral to or explicitly relied upon in the
complaint,” it “may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss into one for

summary judgment” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. See Doe v. Univ. of Scis., 961 F.3d 203, 208 (3d
Cir. 2020) (“USciences”) (quoting Burlington, 114 F.3d at 1426). But even where a document is
integral to and explicitly relied upon in the [C]omplaint, “consideration [of that document] only

goes so far.” Doe v. Princeton University, 30 F.4th 33, 34 (3d Cir. 2022). Thus, when “the truth

of facts in an ‘integral’ document are contested by the well-pleaded facts of a complaint, the

facts in the complaint must prevail.” Jd.
Ill. DISCUSSION
Defendant Main argues that 1) he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff fails

to plead any civil rights violations against him, and that 2) he is protected from liability under the
professional judgment standard. (See Moving Brief at 8-16.) As explained below, neither of

these arguments entitles him to dismissal of Plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise and “class

of one” equal protection claims. From the outset, Defendant Main relies on a 66-page document,
titled “Residents’ Guide to the STU, May 2, 2019” (“the Guide”) to amplify and discredit
Plaintiff's allegations. (See Exhibit A to Movant’s Brief.) The Guide is not relied on in the
Complaint or integral to the allegations, and the Court declines to consider this document as
evidence at the motion to dismiss stage.”
Defendant Main frames his request for dismissal through the lens of qualified immunity.
An award of qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability and suit
“insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. F itzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
The Supreme Court has set forth a two-pronged inquiry for use in analyzing the defense of
qualified immunity. See Tolan y, Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 655-56 (2014). The first prong concerns
whether the conduct at issue violated a federal right. See id. “The second prong of the qualified-
immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the
violation.” Jd. at 656. Courts may use their discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of

the qualified immunity they should tackle first. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236

(2009). The defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong is not satisfied.

See id. at 244-45

2 For instance, Defendant Main states that the “the denial or restriction of privileges previously
granted to residents is based on that resident's behavior, regardless of the unit on which they are
housed.” (ECF No. 70-1, Moving Brief at 10 (citing McNally Cert., Exhibit A at p. 47).) As
should be clear from the motion to dismiss standard, the Court is not able to consider this

ee Ss

With respect to qualified immunity, Defendant Main argues that Plaintiff has not
adequately pleaded that Main’s conduct violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.? The qualified
immunity analysis under prong one mirrors the motion to dismiss standard under Rule 12(b)(6).
See, e.g., Rivera v. Monko, 37 F 4th 909, 914 (3d Cir. 2022) (explaining that in qualified
immunity cases at the motion to dismiss stage, the court “accept[s] the plaintiff's allegations as
true and draw[s] all inferences in his favor”) (citations omitted).
The Court thus analyzes whether Plaintiff states a First Amendment religious exercise
claim and a “class of one” equal protection claims against Defendant Main.’ As a general
matter, “[p]ersons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate
treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are
designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982). Indeed, civil detainees
enjoy constitutional protection under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause—not the
Eighth Amendment, which analogously protects prisoners—from state facilities’ imposition of
restrictions and other general conditions of confinement that do not reasonably serve a

3 Defendant Main does not argue or attempt to analyze whether the rights at issue are clearly
established, and the Court does not consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis
in the absence of briefing on the issue.
4 Defendant Main does not contend that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege his personal
involvement as a supervisor. Supervisor liability may attach if the supervisor(s), “with deliberate
indifference to the consequences, established and maintained a policy, practice or custom which
directly caused [the] constitutional harm.” Barkes v, First Correctional Medical, Inc., 766 F.3d
307, 316-19 (3d Cir. 2014) (reversed on other grounds by Taylor v. Barkes, 135 8. Ct. 2042,
2043 (2015)) (quoting A.M. ex rel. J MK. v. Luzerne Cnty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 586
(3d Cir. 2004). Alternatively, “a supervisor may be personally liable under § 1983 if he or she
participated in violating the plaintiff's rights, directed others to violate them, or, as the person in
charge, had knowledge of and acquiesced in his subordinates’ violations.” 4.M. ex rel. J. □□□□□
2799 EE otd at R56

in

legitimate, non-punitive government objective. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538-39 (1979)
(discussing rights of pretrial criminal detainees).
Institutional authorities nevertheless may restrict the constitutional freedoms that
institutionalized persons otherwise would enjoy, so long as those restrictions are rationally
related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 87,
(1987). This reasonableness standard applies even if the violation of a fundamental right is
alleged, see id., or if the conduct at issue is a central tenet of an inmate’s religious beliefs. See
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987). In order to determine if a regulation is
reasonable, the court examines: 1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between the
regulation and the asserted governmental interest; 2) whether alternative means of exercising a
right remain available; 3) the impact of the regulation on prison staff, other inmates, and prison
resources; and the 4) availability of ready alternatives to the regulation. See Turner, 482 U.S. at
89-91. While a court may sometimes be in a position to apply the Turner factors based on the
pleadings alone, often a factual record is necessary to assess whether the regulation or practice is
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Ramirez v. Pugh, 379 F.3d 122, 126-
30 (3d Cir. 2004) (reversing grant of a motion to dismiss and remanding for development of the
factual record); see also Brothers v. Lawrence Cnty. Prison Bd., No. CIV.A. 06-1285, 2008 WL
146828, at *5 & n.7 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2008) (“[S]uch a multi-factored fact-intensive test as
Turner’s does not generally lend itself to being addressed in the context of a motion to
dismiss....””).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Main and others have completely denied him
access to religious services due to his housing assignment at the STU and/or status as a treatment
refuser and also alleges that he has not been provided an alternative to religious services, such as

regular visits from a chaplain. The Court is not able to assess the Turner factors and determine
whether this restriction is rationally related to legitimate penological interests without a more
developed factual record. As such, Defendant Main’s arguments that this restriction is legitimate
and treatment-related must await a complete record at summary judgment. See, e.g., Robinson v.
Wetzel, 648 F. App’x. 168, 171 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s grant of summary
judgment where prisoner alleging denial of religious television programing had alternative
means of exercising his First Amendment right to practice his Christian religion); Houseknecht v.
Doe, 653 F.Supp.2d 547, 559 (E.D. Pa., 2009) (holding at the summary judgment stage that the
restriction of the plaintiff's religious rights due to his election to enter into protective custody is
rationally related to a legitimate penological interest). Because the Court cannot consider
documents and evidence outside the Complaint and/or credit Defendant Main’s contentions in
his moving brief that he acted within his professional judgment in his all dealings with Plaintiff,
the motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim as to Defendant Main is denied without
prejudice. Qualified immunity is likewise denied without prejudice on prong one.
The Court also denies Defendant Main’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs “class of one”
equal protection claim. An equal protection claim may be asserted by a “class of one where the
plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from other similarly situated
and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Village of Willowbrook v.
Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (quotations omitted); see also Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455
F.3d 225, 239 (3d Cir. 2006) (same).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of the South Housing Unit, and Defendant
Main approved a policy barring residents of the South Housing Unit on TR status from
participating in social events, buying DVD movies and video games from source of sale vendors,

and renting DVD movies and videos. He alleges that other SVPs who are on TR or similar
restricted status and housed outside the South Housing Unit are not barred from social events and
buying or renting DVDs and videos, despite their TR status. Defendant Main relies on evidence
outside the Complaint and contends that these types of privileges are based on the individual
behavior of each detainees and not on housing status; however, his contentions contradict the
Complaint, and the Court must decide a motion to dismiss based on the allegations in the
Complaint. Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice the motion to dismiss the class of one
equal protection claim. Qualified immunity on prong one is likewise denied without prejudice.
With respect to both types of claims, Defendant Main also contends that his actions are
entitled to a presumption of validity under the professional judgment standard. The Court agrees
that treatment decisions by mental health professionals in connection with civilly committed
individuals are controlled by the professional judgment standard. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at
321-24. Under this standard, “[i]t is not appropriate for the courts to specify which of several
professionally acceptable choices should have been made,” rather, “the Constitution only
requires that the courts make certain that professional judgment in fact was exercised.”
Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321. “Liability may be imposed only when the decision by the
professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or
standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such
a judgment.” /d. at 323.
Defendant Main appears to rely on the Third Circuit’s decision in Oliver v. Roquet, 858
F.3d 180 (2017) for the proposition that he is protected from liability for his “treatment
decisions” regardless of whether his actions impinge on Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free
exercise or violate his right to equal protection. In Oliver, the plaintiff, also an SVP, was denied

SSS

advancement to the next phase of sex offender treatment, and he sued a psychologist at the STU
for allegedly retaliating against him for his own legal activities and his legal activities on behalf
of other residents. The primary facts in support of the First Amendment retaliation claim were
contained in a report, which, among other things, suggested that the plaintiff may need to
consider whether his focus on legal activities was interfering with his treatment. See id. at 185-
86. In its decision, the Third Circuit clarified the pleading requirements for a First Amendment
retaliation claim against a mental health professional at a state institution,’ holding that ‘a prima
facie showing of causation requires more than the allegation that the professional based a
medical decision on symptomology that happened to relate in some way to a patient’s protected
activity.” Instead, there must be particular facts alleged that allow the court to reasonably infer it
is the protected activity itself, and not simply medically relevant behavior associated with that
activity, that formed the basis of the defendant’s adverse action.” /d. at 192. Thus, after Oliver,
to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against a medical professional based on treatment
decisions that seem to target or affect a protected activity, a Plaintiff must provide facts showing
that the medical professional targeted the protected speech itself and not just the legitimate
clinical or collateral consequences of that speech.
As explained by the Third Circuit,
“[tJhis is so because a medical professional’s holistic approach to
diagnosing a patient’s mental health will sometimes require
consideration of his otherwise protected speech and conduct to
evaluate any adverse consequences they are having on his
treatment. Framed in terms of the Rauser test and the relevant
pleading standards, an assertion by a mental health detainee that

5 To state a First Amendment retaliation claim in the usual course, an individual must assert that:
(1) he engaged in constitutionally protected conduct; (2) he suffered an adverse action sufficient
to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights; and (3) the

his treating psychologist retaliated against him, based only on the
factual allegation that the psychologist considered the effect his
First Amendment activity was having on his treatment, would not
support the inference that retaliation was the “substantial or
motivating factor” for the psychologist’s recommendation.
Oliver, 858 F.3d at 192.
Here, however, the Court did not proceed a First Amendment retaliation claim against
Defendant Main based on his treatment decisions that incidentally affected Plaintiff's First
Amendment activities. The First Amendment claim alleged in the Complaint is the denial of
religious exercise, and there is nothing in the Complaint to suggest that Defendant Main
restricted Plaintiff's access to religious services for treatment-related reasons. Plaintiff has also
alleged that Defendant Main created a policy barring Plaintiff (and other SVPs in the South Unit)
from participating in social events and buying and renting videos and video games and treated
him differently than other similarly situated sex offenders who are permitted to have these
privileges despite their status as treatment refusers. Whether these disparities are treatment-
related and/or justified is not apparent from the Complaint, and Defendant Main cannot insulate
himself from liability at the motion to dismiss stage merely by claiming to have acted in
accordance with his professional judgment. For these reasons, the motion to dismiss and request
for qualified immunity are also denied without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion, the motion to dismiss is denied
without prejudice as to Merrill Main on Plaintiff’s First Amendment religious exercise and “class
of one” equal protection claims. Qualified immunity on prong one is likewise denied without
prejudice as to both claims. Once discovery is complete, Defendant Main may move for
summary judgment and qualified immunity on these claims, if appropriate. An appropriate order

Madeline Cox Arleo, District Judge
United States District Court

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10277093. Public record. Not legal advice.