RODRIGUEZ v. SOMERSET COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ELIAS RODRIGUEZ,

Civil Action No. 24-9115 (JXN)(LDW)

Plaintiff,

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SOMERSET COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

NEALS, District Judge

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Elias Rodriguez’s (“Plaintiff”) civil rights complaint

(“Complaint”), brought pursuant to Bivens v. Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (ECF No. 1) and his application to proceed in forma pauperis

(ECF No. 5). Based on his affidavit of indigence (ECF No. 5), the Court will grant Plaintiff leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and will order the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint.

The Court must now review the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A 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.

The Court construes the Complaint as raising a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force

claim, asserting that Defendant Sheriff’s Officer Garita (“Garita”) “struck [Plaintiff] with a closed

fist several times [in] the back of [the] head” while Plaintiff was handcuffed. (ECF No. 1 at 6.)

Plaintiff submits Defendant Garita took Plaintiff to a separate room so Garita could assault Plaintiff

“off camera.” (Id. at 7.) The Court has screened the Complaint in this action for dismissal and has

determined that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Garita may proceed.

However, the Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Somerset County Sheriff’s

Office, as the Sheriff’s Office does not qualify as a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. Brandon

v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 472 (1985) (finding county department does not have an identity distinct

from the county itself.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Somerset County

Sheriff’s Office shall be dismissed with prejudice.

Next, Plaintiff fails to state a supervisory liability claim against Defendant Warden Tim

Pino (“Pino”). The Complaint alleges only that Defendant Pino received Plaintiff’s letter regarding

pressing charges against Defendant Garita and informed Plaintiff that the matter was under

investigation. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) The Court construes the Complaint as alleging Defendant Pino

failed to respond to the assault and as raising a supervisory liability claim against Defendant Pino.

A plaintiff may establish supervisory liability under § 1983 by showing: (1) liability based

on an establishment of policies, practices, or customs that directly caused the constitutional

violation; or (2) personal liability based on the supervisor participating in the violation of the

plaintiff’s rights, directing others to violate the plaintiff’s rights, or having knowledge of and

acquiescing to a subordinate’s conduct. Doe v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corr., No. 14-5284, 2015 WL

3448233, at *9 (D.N.J. May 29, 2015). Here, the Complaint is devoid of facts that allege that

Defendant Pino established a custom of permitting excessive force to go unpunished, with

deliberate indifference to the risk of a constitutional violation by a subordinate. Cf. Beck v. City of

Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966, (3d Cir. 1997) (finding multiple similar complaints within a narrow period

of time sufficient to allege supervisor should have known of his subordinate’s propensity for

violence when making arrests). Additionally, Defendant Pino’s response that the allegations

against Garita were under investigation is insufficient to establish that Pino had knowledge of and

acquiesced in the assault before it took place. The Court will, therefore, dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983

claim against Defendant Pino without prejudice.

Next, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against Defendant Sergeant Gandolfe

(“Gandolfe”) and Defendant Darrin J. Russo (“Russo”). It is unclear to the Court what claim

Plaintiff is attempting to raise against Defendant Gandolfe, as the Complaint alleges only that

following the incident Defendant Gandolfe took Plaintiff’s complaint and photographed his

injuries. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) Additionally, although Plaintiff names Defendant Russo as a defendant,

the Complaint fails to allege any facts against Defendant Russo. (See id. at 6-8.) In a § 1983 action,

the personal involvement of each defendant in the alleged constitutional violation is a required

element, and, therefore, a plaintiff must allege how each defendant was involved in the events and

occurrences giving rise to the claims. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.

1998). Defendant Gandolfe’s involvement is limited to the taking of a complaint from Plaintiff

following the incident. The Complaint fails to raise any allegations against Defendant Russo. To

the extent Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants Gandolfe and Russo, they will be dismissed

without prejudice because there are no facts in the Complaint showing that they were personally

involved in the alleged excessive force used against Plaintiff or otherwise violated Plaintiff’s civil

rights.

Finally, if Plaintiff is attempting to raise a Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care

claim following the assault, the Complaint fails to name a defendant who was responsible for or

involved in Plaintiff’s medical care. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies

to pretrial detainees’ claims of inadequate medical care. Bocchino v. City of Atlantic City, 179 F.

Supp. 3d 387, 403 (D.N.J. 2016). To state such a claim, a pretrial detainee must allege: (1) a serious

medical need; and (2) behavior on the part of prison officials that constitutes deliberate indifference

to that need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility,

318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003). Plaintiff neither sues a medical staff member who allegedly

provided (or failed to provide) treatment nor states facts that the named Defendants participated in

his medical care. Therefore, any Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim is dismissed

without prejudice. Accordingly,

IT IS on this 6th day of December 2024,

ORDERED Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be filed; it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) and for purposes of account deduction

only, the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order by regular mail upon the Attorney General of the

State of New Jersey and the Administrator of Morris County Correctional Facility; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff is assessed a filing fee of $350.00 and shall pay the entire filing

fee in the manner set forth in this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2), regardless of

the outcome of the litigation, meaning that if the Court dismisses the case as a result of its sua

sponte screening, or Plaintiff’s case is otherwise administratively terminated or closed, § 1915

does not suspend installment payments of the filing fee or permit refund to the prisoner of the

filing fee, or any part of it, that has already been paid; it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 632 (2016), if Plaintiff owes

fees for more than one court case, whether to a district or appellate court, under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provision governing the mandatory recoupment of filing fees,

Plaintiff’s monthly income is subject to a simultaneous, cumulative 20% deduction for each case

a court has mandated a deduction under the PLRA; i.e., Plaintiff would be subject to a 40%

deduction if there are two such cases, a 60% deduction if there are three such cases, etc. until all

fees have been paid in full; it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), in each month that the amount in

Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall assess, deduct from

Plaintiff’s account, and forward to the Clerk of the Court payment equal to 20% of the preceding

month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s account, in accordance with Bruce, until the $350.00 filing

fee is paid. Each payment shall reference the civil docket numbers of the actions to which the

payment should be credited; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against

Defendant Sheriff’s Officer Garita may PROCEED; it is further

ORDERED that (1) Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Somerset County Sheriff’s Office

is DISMISSED with prejudice, (2) Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim against Defendant

Warden Tim Pino is DISMISSED without prejudice, (3) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants

Darrin J. Russo and Sergeant Gandolfe are DISMISSED without prejudice, and (4) any

Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim is DISMISSED without prejudice; it is

further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail to Plaintiff a transmittal letter explaining the

procedure for completing United States Marshal (“Marshal”) 285 Forms (“USM-285 Forms”); it

is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall complete the form for each Defendant and return them to

the Clerk of Court, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark,

NJ 07102; it is further

ORDERED that upon Plaintiff’s sending of the completed forms to the Clerk of the Court,

the Clerk shall issue summons, and the United States Marshall shall serve a copy of the Complaint

(ECF No. 1), summons, and this Order upon Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), with all

costs of services advanced by the United States; it is further

ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve a responsive pleading within the time

specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve Plaintiff with copies of this

Memorandum and Order via regular mail.

________________________

JULIEN XAVIER NEALS

United States District Judge