Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cook v. Taylor

October 16, 2012

ARMANI COOK PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
DARRELL CRONE PLAINTIF,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
JOSEPH D. D'AGSOTINO PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
DAVID ENGLISH PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
NATHAN INGRAM PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
BARRY LEWIS PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
MARK W. MILLERLINE PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
DARRYL STOVE PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIC TAYLOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently before the court are eight unopposed motions to dismiss eight nearly identical complaints brought by pretrial detainees who were confined, for varying periods of time in 2009 and 2010, in the Camden County Correctional Facility ("CCCF").*fn1 The Court finds as follows:

1. The Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, individually allege a number of identicaly claims relating to their confinement conditions in CCCF against the County of Camden and County officers, as well as Aramark, Inc. ("Aramark"), Aramark Correctinal Services LLC ("ACS") and ACS's Dietitian Carey. Relevant to the present motions are only those claims against Aramark, ACS and Dietician Carey alleging violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for serving meals in an unsanitary manner and for failing to provide adequate calories at meals. *fn2 Defendants Aramark, ACS and Dietician Carey have filed motions to dismiss the counts against them for failure to state a claim, because, they argue, Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing a violation of their Due Process rights related to the food they were served while confined at the CCCF. For the reasons explained below, the motions to dismiss will be granted.

2. The facts and procedural history common to these cases were described in this Court's previous opinion, Simmons v. Taylor, No. 10-1192, 2012 WL 3863792, at *1-*2 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2012), which dismissed identical claims against Aramark, ACS and Dietician Carey. A copy of the Simmons opinion is attached hereto as ADDendix A. In brief, these eight Plaintiffs allege that their food trays often had dirt, hair, dried food or "other foreign objects" on them and that the trays were cracked, allowing substances to collect along the cracks and emit odors ("Unsanitary Meal Service") . *fn3 [Compl. II a-c on 9.] The Plaintiffs also allege that meals frequently differed from the posted menus and that the substitutions provided too few calories to the detainees and that Dietician Carey signed off on the substitutions ("Failure to Provide Proper Caloric Intake"). [Compl. IT a-g on 9-11.] Each Plaintiff provides an example or two of how the meals served differed from the meals listed on the menus. One representative example: the menu described one meal as including a hamburger patty on a bun with cheese and catsup, 3/4 cup of cottage fries, 1/2 cup of coleslaw, 1/2 cup of gelatin and a slice of cake; the detainees actually received one hamburger patty on a bun, six spoonfuls of mashed potatoes, two spoonfuls of chopped cabbage ("dry"), and five spoonfuls of pudding. *fn4

[Compl. I g on 10.]

3. Plaintiffs assert generally that they suffered "serious emotional and physical injuries" as well as "measurable monetary damages" but do not allege facts supporting those conclusions. [Compl. 1 30 on 13.] Plaintiffs do not allege facts that they suffered damage or injury from the actions of the moving Defendants.

4. Defendants now move to dismiss the claims against them. See supra note 1. None of the Plaintiffs have filed opposition to the motions to dismiss.

5. All of the factual pleadings in these eight cases, as well as the legal assertions and claims against Defendants Aramark, ACS and Dietician Carey are materially similar, if not identical, to those in Simmons. Consequently, these cases raise identical legal issues to those decided in that case. Because the Court already conducted the relevant legal analysis in Simmons, 2012 WL 3863792, at *2-*4 [attached hereto as Appendix A], the Court herein incorporates that analysis.

6. Plaintiffs' Complaints do not satisfy the applicable standard for unconstitutional punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment as announced in Stevenson v. Carro11,495 F.3d 62, 68 (3d Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Court will grant the motions to dismiss.

7. The accompanying Orders will be entered.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CARLTON SIMMONS Plaintiff, v. ERIC TAYLOR, WARDEN, et al., Defendants.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 10-1192 (JBS/AMD)

OPINION

APPEARANCES: Carlton Simmons 1317 Sheridan Street Camden, NJ 08104 Plaintiff pro se Matthew J. Behr, Esq. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Woodland Falls Corporate Park 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Counsel for Defendants Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Aramark, Inc., and Dietician Carey

SIMANDLE, Chief ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.