Van Hunter v. Matthew Schullery, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied with prejudice Van Hunter’s second motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The proposed amendment reasserted Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against New Jersey prison officials and added Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims against Fathom Borg. The court concluded that the proposed Eighth Amendment claims remained futile because the alleged conditions and allegations of deliberate indifference were insufficient.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend was properly denied because the alleged conditions of Plaintiff's approximately nine-week confinement in the restrictive housing unit, considered individually and collectively, did not plausibly constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
2. Plaintiff failed to plead that Defendant Borg actually knew that he faced a substantial risk of serious harm in restrictive housing; therefore, the proposed Eighth Amendment claim against Borg was futile.
3. Plaintiff's approximately nine-week placement in restrictive housing, under the conditions alleged, did not impose an atypical and significant hardship and therefore did not implicate a protected liberty interest.
4. Leave to file the proposed third amended complaint was denied with prejudice because the proposed Eighth Amendment and due process claims failed to state plausible claims for relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether amendment should be permitted to reassert an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim based on Plaintiff's approximately nine-week placement in restrictive housing and the alleged conditions there.
2. Whether the proposed allegations plausibly showed that Defendant Borg was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm.
3. Whether Plaintiff's approximately nine-week placement in restrictive housing imposed an atypical and significant hardship sufficient to create a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause.
4. Whether the proposed substantive and procedural due process claims against Defendant Borg were futile.

Disposition

other