# TOLBERT v. ATLANTIC COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITY > District Court, D. New Jersey · January 8, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10777512 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey - **Decided:** January 8, 2025 - **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/10777512 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - describing the two types of municipal liability - explaining that the Constitution mandates that prison officials satisfy inmates’ “basic human needs—e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety” - explaining that the Constitution mandates that prison officials satisfy inmates’ “basic human needs—e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety” - describing the two types of municipal liability ## Opinion text UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TYRELL TOLBERT, ! Civil Action No. 24-10117 (RK JTQ) Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Vv. ATLANTIC COUNTY JUSTICE : FACILITY, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Tyrell Tolbert, a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated at Atlantic County Justice Facility, has filed a Complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”). As this time, the Court grants the IFP application. Federal law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint for sponte dismissal prior to service, and to dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a clatm upon which relief may be granted and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). To survive screening, Plaintiffs Complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. See id. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. See Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that there is limited running water for flushing the toilet at Atlantic County Justice Facility and, as a result, there is feces and urine in the toilet for 12 hours per day. (Complaint at 5.) Plaintiff is also housed in a unit with “tints” on the windows, which prevents him from receiving “proper sunlight.” Ud.) Plaintiffhas sued the Atlantic County Justice Facility and the Michael Kelly, the Warden of that facility, for subjecting him to “cruel and unusual punishment.” (/d. at 1, 4-5.) The Court construes Plaintiff to assert violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To succeed on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federally secured right. See, e.g., Moore v. Tartler, 986 F. 2d 682, 685 (3d Cir. 1983). From the outset, the Court dismisses the Complaint against the Atlantic County Justice Facility, as this entity is not a proper Defendant in a § 1983 action. See Crooks v. Passaic Cnty. Sheriff's Department/Jail, 2007 WL 923330, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2007) (collecting cases). The § 1983 claims against the Atlantic County Justice Facility are dismissed with prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege § 1983 claims against Atlantic County arising from his conditions of confinement, he fails to state a claim for relief. The liability of a municipality under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by Monell v, Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Municipalities may not be found vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Ed. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). Instead, a plaintiff must plead the elements of a Monell claim, which may proceed in two different ways. See, eg. Estate of Roman vy. City of Newark, 914 F.3d 789, 798-99 (3d Cir. 2019) (describing the two types of municipal liability). A plaintiff may allege that an unconstitutional policy or custom of the municipality led to his or her injuries, id. at 798 (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694), or that his injuries were caused by a failure or inadequacy by the municipality that “reflects a deliberate or conscious choice,” see id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Muhlenberg Twp., 269 F.3d 205, 215 (3d Cir. 2001); see also Forrest v. Parry, 930 F.3d 93, 105 (3d Cir. 2019) (explaining that the second type of Monell claim involves failures to train, supervise, or discipline). Here, Plaintiff has sued the jail and the Warden for discrete conditions at the jail, but he has not attempted to plead the elements of a Monei/ claim against Atlantic County.! Thus, to the extent he is attempting to allege a Monell claim against Atlantic County, the Court dismisses that Monell claim without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff also fails to state a claim for relief against Michael Kelly in his personal capacity as a supervisor. To be held liable under § 1983, a supervisor must have had “personal involvement in the alleged wrongs.” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207-08 (3d Cir. 1988); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (civil rights defendants may not be held liable under respondeat superior theory of liability). There are “two general ways in which a supervisor-defendant may be liable for unconstitutional acts undertaken by subordinates.” Barkes v. First Corr. Med., Inc., 766 F.3d 1 To state a claim under Monell, Plaintiff must allege facts showing that there is a relevant policy or custom adopted by Atlantic County and that the policy or custom resulted in the alleged constitutional violation(s). See Natale v. Camden County Correctional Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583-84 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Brown, 520 U.S. at 404). “To satisfy the pleading standard, [a plaintiff] must identify a custom or policy, and specify what exactly that custom or policy was.” McTernan v. City of York, 564 F.3d 636, 658 (3d Cir. 2009); see also Forrest, 930 F.3d at 105 (“a plaintiff presenting an unconstitutional policy must point to an official proclamation, policy or edict by a decisionmaker possessing final authority to establish municipal policy on the relevant subject”). Once a policy or custom is identified, a plaintiff must also allege facts stating a plausible connection between the policy and the alleged constitutional harm. See Palakovic v. Wetzel 854 F.3d 209, 232 (3d Cir. 2017) (“To state a claim against a private corporation providing medical services under contract with a state prison system, a plaintiff must allege a policy or custom that resulted in the alleged constitutional violations at issue.””). Finally, to proceed on a Monell theory, a plaintiff must typically allege a pattern of similar past conduct to show that the entity was on notice that the policy or custom caused the alleged violation. See, e.g., Schlaybach v. Berks Heim Nursing & Rehabilitation, 839 F. App’x. 759, 760 (3d Cir. 2021). Alternatively, Plaintiff could state a Monell claim against Atlantic County by alleging a failure to supervise, train, or discipline, and he must provide facts showing that the failure amounts to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of those affected. Forrest, 930 F.3d at 106. 307, 316 (3d Cir. 2014), reversed on other grounds by Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S, 822 (2015). First, a supervisor may be liable if he or she “‘with deliberate indifference to the consequences, established and maintained a policy, practice or custom which directly caused [the] constitutional harm.””? Jd. (quoting A.M. ex rel. MLK. v. Luzerne Cty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 586 (3d Cir, 2004) (alteration in original)). “Second, a supervisor may be personally liable under § 1983 if he or she participated in violating the plaintiffs rights, directed others to violate them, or, as the person in charge, had knowledge of and acquiesced in the subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct.” Id. Here, Plaintiff alleges only that Michael Kelly, as the Warden, is responsible for authorizing the cruel and unusual punishment at the Atlantic County Justice Facility. These facts are conclusory and insufficient to show Kelly’s personal involvement in the alleged wrongs. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against Kelly, and the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to this Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim regarding his conditions of confinement at the jail. The Constitution requires “humane conditions of confinement,” including “adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). In addition, * Plaintiff should note that when an amended complaint is filed, it supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect, unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the earlier pleading. See West Run Student Housing Associates, LLC v. Huntington National Bank, 712 F.3d 165, 171 (Gd Cir. 2013)(collecting cases). To avoid confusion, the safer practice is to submit an amended complaint that is complete in itself. Jd. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10777512. Public record. Not legal advice.