United States District Court, D. New Jersey
G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Court on Defendants New Jersey
Department of Corrections ("NJDOC") and New Jersey
State Prison's ("NJSP") motion to dismiss
Plaintiff Scott Baker's complaint. (ECF No. 2). For the
following reasons, the motion is granted.
is currently incarcerated in NJSP, Trenton, New Jersey. He
filed a complaint in Mercer County Superior Court, which
defendants New Jersey Department of Corrections
("DOC") and NJSP (collectively state defendants)
removed to federal court on November 28, 2017. (ECF No. 1).
to the Complaint, Plaintiff has been incarcerated since at
least 2016 and has been taking Lisinopril for high blood
pressure. He was taken to UMDNJ on May 13, 2016 for a spinal
injection procedure unrelated to his high blood pressure, at
which time a surgeon told him Lisinopril was a "bad
drug." (Compl. ¶ 17). The surgeon told Plaintiff he
should be taken off Lisinopril as it "was dangerous and
was not working." (Compl. ¶ 18). Plaintiff asked
defendant Joy Camarillo, an APN at NJSP, to prescribe a
different medication and she agreed. (Compl. ¶ 19).
Plaintiff alleges that instead of giving him a different
medicine, Camarillo increased his dosage of Lisinopril.
(Compl. ¶ 20).
9, 2016, Plaintiffs lip began to swell and he had difficulty
swallowing. He had a headache and trouble breathing. He
assumed he was getting sick and went to bed early. He awoke
early the next morning unable to breathe. (Compl.
¶¶ 21-22). A nurse saw Plaintiffs distress and
notified the Wing Officer that Plaintiff had to go to the
prison clinic immediately. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24). The
Wing Officer called defendant Supervising Officer Doe, who
told Plaintiff he could not go to the clinic until after
count ended approximately one hour later. (Compl. ¶ 25).
Plaintiff went to the clinic at the conclusion of count at
roughly 6:30 a.m. on an emergency pass. (Compl. ¶ 27).
Plaintiff needed assistance to the clinic because he
collapsed on his way there. (Compl. ¶ 29). Plaintiff
passed out shortly after arriving at the clinic and had an
oxygen mask on his face and IV tube when he woke up. The
medical staff sent him to St. Francis where he was treated
for an allergic reaction to Lisinopril. (Compl. ¶¶
30-31). He alleges he suffers from recurring nightmares and
PTSD and is afraid to take any medication. (Compl. ¶
32). He claims this incident was never reported or written up
properly. (Compl. ¶ 34).
originally filed this complaint in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Law Division, Mercer County. The state defendants
removed the complaint to this Court on November 28, 2017.
(ECF No. 1). On December 5, 2017, the state defendants filed
a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. (ECF No. 2). The Court
conducted oral argument on January 22, 2018, with Plaintiff
appearing by telephone. The state defendants presented their
arguments, and Plaintiff indicated he had not received a copy
of the state defendants' moving papers. The Court ordered
the state defendants to serve Plaintiff by January 29, 2018,
and Plaintiff to file his opposition by February 13, 2018.
(ECF No. 7). Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the
considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to
state a claim, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court must accept
all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and
view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. A motion to dismiss may be granted only if the
plaintiff has failed to set forth fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests that make such a
claim plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not
require "detailed factual allegations, " it
requires "more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must
"tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead
to state a claim. Second, it should identify allegations
that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not
entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, [w]hen there
are well-pleaded factual allegations, [the] court should
assume their veracity and then determine whether they
plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."
Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d
Cir. 2016) (alterations in original) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). "[A] complaint's
allegations of historical fact continue to enjoy a highly
favorable standard of review at the motion-to-dismiss stage
of proceedings." Id. at 790.
raises the following claims: (1) violation of the New Jersey
Civil Rights Act ("NJCRA"), N.J. Stat. Ann. §
10:6-2(d) and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/or battery; (2)
deliberate indifference; (3) medical malpractice; (4)
deliberate indifference - failure to protect; (5) state
intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) state
constitutional claims; (7) federal constitutional tort; (8)
state constitutional tort; (9) breach of duty to report
misconduct; (10) negligence; (11) cruel and unusual
punishment; (12) violations of public policy; (13)
substantive due process violations; (14); New Jersey Patient
Safety Act; (15) New Jersey Medical Care Access and
Responsibility and Patient First Act; (16) New Jersey
Patient's Bill of Rights; (17) medical malpractice -
gross deviation from the standard of care; (18) medical
malpractice - lack of informed consent; (19) breach of
contract causing damage to intended third party beneficiary;
and, (20) punitive damages.