United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant Dr. Yusef's motion to dismiss the
Complaint. (ECF No. 16). Defendant Yusef is the last
remaining defendant in this matter. Plaintiff opposes the
motion (ECF No. 19), and Defendant did not file a reply. For
the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court will deny the
parties are intimately familiar with the facts of this case,
and because the Court has already set forth the background of
this matter in its earlier Opinion (ECF No. 6), the Court
will only state those facts necessary to address the instant
to the brief allegations in the Complaint, at some point
prior to August 26, 2016, Unknown Officer opened Plaintiffs
incoming mail, which contained “pictures depicting
homosexuals.” (ECF No. 1, at 6). Unknown Officer then
showed the pictures to, among other people, the Defendant, an
Islamic chaplain at the prison. On August 26, 2016, officers
turned Plaintiff away from prayer services at the direction
Plaintiff wrote to the commissioner's office, the special
investigation division, and the prison administrator.
Plaintiff does not elaborate on the contents of those
writings, the results thereof, or whether anyone is still
denying Plaintiff access to religious services.
filed the instant Complaint on or about January 29, 2018. The
Court granted his in forma pauperis application and
screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(ECF Nos. 5, 6). The Court permitted Plaintiffs First
Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to proceed
against Defendant and dismissed Plaintiffs other claims. (ECF
now moves to dismiss the claim against him. He argues that
the Court should dismiss the Complaint because: (1) Plaintiff
has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (2) the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) the Court
should abstain from hearing this matter. (ECF No. 16).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss an
action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, “courts
accept all factual allegations as true, construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the
complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.”
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.
2009) (quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515
F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). In other words, a complaint
survives a motion to dismiss if it contains sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
this determination, a court conducts a three-part analysis.
Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d
Cir. 2010). First, the court must “tak[e] note of the
elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.”
Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675).
Second, the court should identify allegations that,
“because they are no more than conclusions, are not
entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at
131 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680). Finally,
“where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.”
general matter, a district court ruling on a motion to
dismiss may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings.
In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d
1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997). This rule rests on the concern
that considering documents outside the complaint would
prejudice the plaintiff, who would lack notice to challenge