SKELTON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: October 28, 2021
• Docket: 1:19-cv-18597
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE RAYMOND SKELTON on behalf of : himself and all other : similarly situated persons, : CIV. NO. 19-18597 (RMB/KMW) : Plaintiff : v. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : NEW JERSEY DEP’T OF CORR., : et al., : : Defendants : ______________________________ Joseph D. Lento Lento Law Group, P.C. 3000 Atrium Way Suite 200 MT. Laurel, N.J. 08054 Keith Altman, Esq. EXCOLO Law PLLC 26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401 Southfield, MI 48033 Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel S. Shehata, Deputy Attorney General Michael Ezra Vomacka, Deputy Attorney General New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market St, P.O. Box 112 Trenton, NJ 08625 Attorneys for Defendants BUMB, United States District Judge This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ First Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (“Mot. to Amend”) (Dkt. No. 30.) Defendants New Jersey Department of Corrections, Marcus O. Hicks and John Powell (the “NJDOC Defendants”) filed an informal response to the motion to amend, taking no position on whether the

motion should be granted, but noting this Court granted their motion to dismiss and the proposed amended complaint does not seek to reinstate them as defendants. (Letter Response, Dkt. No. 31.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his initial complaint as a putative class action on October 2, 2019. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On October 30, 2020, this Court granted NJDOC Defendants’ motion to dismiss but granted leave to file an amended complaint. (Opinion, Dkt. No., 21; Order, Dkt. No. 22.) On June 5, 2021, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not be dismissed

for failure to prosecute. (Order, Dkt. No. 23.) Counsel for Plaintiffs responded, and this Court directed Plaintiffs to file a motion to amend the complaint within 30 days, and Plaintiffs complied. (Response to Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 25, Mot. to Amend, Dkt. No. 30.) II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Leave to amend a complaint “‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Factors that may justify denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, and futility, with prejudice to the nonmoving party as the touchstone

for denial. Id. at 204 (citations omitted). B. The Proposed Amended Complaint Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint deletes the claims against the NJDOC and Administrators Marcus O. Hicks and John Powell. The remaining allegations are made against John Doe Defendants who are alleged to have personal involvement in designing, preparing and serving nutritionally inadequate food to Plaintiff and the putative class. C. Analysis Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend the complaint within the 30 day period provided by this Court’s Order dated July 20, 2021. (Dkt. No. 27.) There does not appear to be any bad faith

on Plaintiffs part in bringing a motion to amend. The John Doe Defendants have not yet been identified or served with the original complaint. They are not prejudiced by bringing the same claims in an amended complaint without the NJDOC Defendants. Therefore, the motion should be granted unless the claims are futile. “An amendment is futile if the amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 121 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Smith v. NCAA, 139 F.3d 180, 190 (3d Cir. 1998), rev'd on other grounds, 525 U.S. 459 (1999)). “[I]n determining futility, the Court must ‘accept all factual allegations as true, construe the [proposed amended] complaint in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff[s], and determine, whether under any reasonable reading of the [proposed amended] complaint, the plaintiff[s] may be entitled to relief.’” Matthews v. New Jersey Inst. of Tech., 717 F. Supp. 2d 447, 451 (D.N.J. 2010) (quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). Under this liberal pleading standard, the claims in Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint are not futile. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the proposed amended complaint. IT IS therefore on this 27th day of October 2021, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ First Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 30.), and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall file Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint (Dkt. No. 30-2) as the amended complaint in this matter.

s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB United States District Judge