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.

Violette v. Ortiz

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 27, 2018

GREGORY PAUL VIOLETTE, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN DAVID E. ORTIZ, et al., Defendants.

          GREGORY PAUL VIOLETTE, Plaintiff Pro Se

          CRAIG CARPENITO, United States Attorney By: KRISTIN LYNN VASSALLO, Assistant United States Attorney Office of the U.S. Attorney District of New Jersey Attorneys for Defendants Warden David Ortiz, Department of Justice, and Federal Bureau of Prisons

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Warden David Ortiz, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry 4. Plaintiff Gregory Violette opposes the motion. Opposition, Docket Entry 6. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss in granted. Plaintiff shall be given leave to amend his Eighth Amendment claims against Warden Ortiz.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Burlington County alleging that he had been subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement while incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix, a federal prison operated by the BOP. Complaint, Docket Entry 1-1. He alleged that between September 2015 and September 2016, he “was made to live in an over capacity living quarter's [sic].” Id. at ¶ 1. According to the complaint:

Using the Federal BOP Program Statement dated June 30, 1997, the square feet per person was 60 sq. ft. each. My room was 525 sq. ft. and that would give you a 8.75 inmate capacity and the prison had me in with 11 other inmates making a total of 12 inmates in my room making it over capacity by 3.25 inmates.

Id. Plaintiff alleged this overcrowding put him under “a lot of stress” and he “had a hard time living because of the amount of inmates in [his] room.” Id. ¶ 3(1). He specifically alleged that the conditions “made my mental illness, bi-polar and PTSD unbearable daily” and caused him to be unable to sleep and eat. Id. ¶¶ 3(2)-(3).

         The United States removed the complaint to this Court on March 9, 2018 under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2)[1] and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).[2] Notice of Removal, Docket Entry 1. It filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 23, 2018.

         The United States argues Plaintiff failed to file an administrative tort claim, depriving this Court of jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). It also argues Plaintiff has failed to state a tort claim or an Eighth Amendment violation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposes the motion by arguing he did file administrative remedies with the BOP.

         The matter is now ripe for disposition.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A party may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The court's jurisdiction may be challenged either facially (based on the legal sufficiency of the claim) or factually (based on the sufficiency of a jurisdictional ...


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.