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.

Abdur-Raheem v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 6, 2017

SHAMSIDDIN A. ABDUR-RAHEEM, Plaintiff,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Michael A. Shipp United States District Judge

         Pro se Plaintiff Shamsiddin A. Abdur-Raheem, confined at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, filed the instant Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion") (ECF No. 62), challenging the Court's March 20, 2017 order granting in part, and denying in part, Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24). (Order, Mar. 20, 2017, ECF No. 60.) For reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiffs Motion.

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A motion for reconsideration is governed in this District by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). Treusch v. Ctr. Square Supermarket, LLC, No. 11-4874, 2013 WL 1405031, at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2013). Rule 7.1(i) requires the moving party to set forth the factual matters or controlling legal authorities it believes the Court overlooked when rendering its initial decision. L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court. .. [rendered the judgment in question]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." U.S. ex ml Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014); see also Buzz Bee Toys, Inc. v. Swimways Corp., 20 F.Supp.3d 483, 515 (D.N.J. 2014). To prevail under the third prong, the movant must show that "dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law were brought to the court's attention but not considered." Mitchell v. Twp. of Willingboro Municipality Gov't, 913 F.Supp.2d 62, 77-78 (D.N.J. 2012) (quotation and citation omitted). The standard of review involved in a motion for reconsideration is high and relief is to be granted sparingly. Id. at 78.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff does not point to an intervening change in the controlling law since the Court's previous decision, nor does Plaintiff rely on any new evidence that was not available when the Court issued its previous decision. As such, the Court analyzes Plaintiffs arguments solely under the third prong described above, "the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Schumann, 769 F.3d at 848-49.

         Plaintiffs Motion raises five grounds for reconsideration: (1) the Court erred in dismissing his property claim on the ground that he had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under state law; (2) the Court erred in dismissing his conditions of confinement claims while in segregated confinement by misapplying applicable precedent; (3) the Court overlooked his right to petition the government claim; (4) the Court erred by dismissing his November 8, 2012 assault claims as time-barred because the Court erroneously rejected Plaintiffs equitable tolling argument; and (5) the Court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs state law tort claims for his failure to file a notice of claim as required by state law. The Court will examine each alleged error, in turn.

         A. Property Claim

         In the previous opinion, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs property claim because it found that adequate and meaningful post-deprivation remedies existed in state court. (Op. 33, Mar. 20, 2017, ECF No. 59) ("Prior Opinion"). Plaintiff does not dispute this finding, but asserts that the dismissal was improper because he had already availed himself of an existing remedy, which was ineffective. As Plaintiff concedes, however, he availed himself of the administrative remedy created by state law, which served as an alternative to the state court remedies. (PL's Br. 3, ECF No. 62-2.) Even accepting Plaintiffs assertions as true, Plaintiff does not explain why he could not have pursued his property claim in state court once the administrative remedy proved ineffective. As cited in the Prior Opinion, the Third Circuit explained that:

[a plaintiff] cannot prevail on his due process claim if the state's post-deprivation procedures, including state tort remedies, are adequate. [The plaintiff] has failed to explain why New Jersey's state procedures to recover wrongfully seized property, such as the ability to move in the criminal action for return of his property or the ability to file a separate action for a writ of replevin, are insufficient.

Revell v. Port Auth. of N.Y., N.J., 598 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2010).

         Plaintiff seems to conflate the Court's dismissal based on the existence of adequate post-deprivation remedies with the law on exhaustion. In this instance, regardless of whether Plaintiff exhausted state court remedies, the Court would have dismissed the claim. As the Third Circuit has plainly held, the existence of adequate post-deprivation remedies in New Jersey precludes Plaintiffs due process claim regarding the deprivation of property. Unless and until Plaintiff can establish that all remedies under state law are either inadequate or not meaningful, there is no federal claim. As such, relief on this ground is denied.

         B. Segregated Confinement Claim

         In the Prior Opinion, the Court dismissed this claim on the basis that it essentially challenges the fact of Plaintiff s placement in segregated confinement, and is not based upon any independent ...


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.