United States District Court, D. New Jersey
G. SHERIDAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Latika
Holland's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, (ECF No. 18), and Plaintiff Bianca Carney's
motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 21). Defendant opposes
the summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on March 26, 2018. (ECF No. 20). Both
motions are denied.
Plaintiff was sentenced by the State of New Jersey to a term
of imprisonment in the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility
("EMCF"), Hunterdon, New Jersey.
Plaintiff alleges she was assaulted by Defendant, a
corrections officer at EMCF, on July 24, 2015. (ECF No. 1
¶ III.C). Plaintiff states Defendant "slammed [her]
on [her] head and spilt it open to [her] skull."
(Ibid.). The injury required stitches and became
infected after Plaintiff was rejected for outside treatment.
(ECF No. 1 ¶ IV).
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on May 25, 2017.
She checked "diversity of citizenship" as the basis
of the Court's jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 ¶ II. A).
Court permitted the complaint to proceed after dismissing the
State of New Jersey, EMCF, and the New Jersey Department of
Corrections as defendants. (ECF No. 6). Defendant Holland was
served on February 8, 2018. (ECF No. 13).
Defendant Holland filed a motion to dismiss on February 22,
2018 arguing that the Court lacked diversity jurisdiction as
all parties are residents of New Jersey. (ECF No. 18).
March 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, (ECF
No. 20),  and a one-page motion for summary
judgment, (ECF No. 21).
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is
denied. Defendant argues that the complaint should be
dismissed because Plaintiff improperly invoked the
Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Defendant argues there is no complete diversity since
Plaintiff states all parties are residents of New Jersey.
(ECF No. 18-1 at 10).
9. In a
facial attack to its subject matter jurisdiction, the Court
may only grant the motion to dismiss only if there are no
appropriate bases for its jurisdiction after viewing the
complaint and all attached documents in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff. Constitution Party of
Pennsylvania v. Aickele, 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir.
2014) ("Thus, a facial attack calls for a district court
to apply the same standard of review it would use in
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
i.e., construing the alleged facts in favor of the
Although the Court may not have diversity jurisdiction over
the complaint, it clearly has federal question jurisdiction.
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
This Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
and concluded Plaintiff stated a claim for constitutional
deprivations. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 2). See also 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Plaintiff has sufficiently
pled a violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on
excessive force as well as the denial of her right to
adequate medical care. The Court is not deprived of
jurisdiction merely because a pro se plaintiff checked the
wrong box on the form. The motion to dismiss is denied as
Plaintiffs one-page summary judgment motion is also denied.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[s]ummary
judgment is appropriate only if' the movant shows that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'"
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014)
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)).
This matter is in its infancy; no discovery has taken place
yet. Summary judgment is denied as premature.
Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is denied, as
is Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The amended
complaint is stricken for failure to comply with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15. Defendant ...