Darius Heimer Gittens v. Ryan Pepper, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey screened Darius Gittens’s second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court allowed to proceed claims concerning allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement in a trailer cell and retaliation for filing grievances, while dismissing or finding moot various claims involving property loss, disciplinary proceedings, grievance responses, conspiracy, the ADA, RLUIPA, and RICO. The opinion explains that certain due-process claims related to lost good-time credits were barred under Heck and related precedent because the disciplinary sanction had not been invalidated.

Holdings

1. The allegations concerning a low-clearance bunk, inadequate lighting, and an initially inadequate pillow did not plausibly establish an Eighth Amendment violation because the plaintiff remained in the cell for only approximately two weeks, received a replacement pillow, was transferred after complaining, and did not adequately allege deliberate indifference.
2. The allegations concerning roaches, rotten bathroom floors, and blocked fire exits plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Defendants Roller, Miglio, Broadwater, Lawson, Devol, Whilden, Rollar, Ross, Alexander, and Gramp.
3. The retaliation claims against Ng, Sooy, Lawson, Miglio, and Pepper could proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged protected grievance activity, retaliatory action, and a causal connection. Retaliation claims against the remaining defendants were dismissed without prejudice as conclusory.
4. The plaintiff's claims based on confiscation, destruction, or theft of property failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim because New Jersey provided meaningful post-deprivation remedies.
5. The plaintiff's due-process claims concerning his disciplinary proceedings were barred because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of an unoverturned disciplinary sanction that affected the duration of his confinement.
6. The plaintiff's claims based solely on defendants' failure to respond adequately to grievances failed to state a federal civil-rights claim because prisoners have no constitutional right to a grievance system or to a particular response.
7. The plaintiff failed to state a claim for ADA damages because he did not adequately allege disability-based discriminatory animus or deliberate indifference, and his prompt transfer undermined the claim.
8. The RLUIPA claim was moot because the plaintiff was no longer housed at the prison where the alleged denial occurred and had been released from custody, and RLUIPA generally does not permit monetary damages.
9. The complaint failed to state conspiracy claims under §§ 1985 and 1986 because it did not allege conspiracy based on race or protected-class discriminatory animus.
10. The plaintiff failed to state a civil RICO claim because the allegations did not establish the required enterprise, harm to business or property through a pattern of racketeering activity, or two qualifying predicate acts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated First Amendment retaliation claims based on prison officials' responses to grievances and complaints.
3. Whether alleged property losses stated a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim where meaningful post-deprivation remedies were available.
4. Whether due-process challenges to disciplinary proceedings resulting in the loss of good-conduct credits were barred under Heck and related precedent.
5. Whether the complaint stated claims under the ADA, RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, civil RICO, and asserted state-law causes of action.

Disposition

other