2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-24-2013

Justice Allah v. Michele Ricci

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-4095

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Justice Allah v. Michele Ricci" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 501.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/501
*AMENDED CLD-179 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-4095

___________

JUSTICE RASIDEEN ALLAH,

Appellant

v.

MICHELE R. RICCI, Administrator New Jersey State Prison; GEORGE HAYMAN, 

Commissioner New Jersey Department of Corrections; ALFORD KANDELL, Assistant 

Administrator New Jersey State Prison; SGT. GROVER, Second Shift Supervisor New 

Jersey State Prison; K. HARRISON, Senior Correctional Officer New Jersey State 

Prison; NAPARELLA, Senior Correctional Officer New Jersey State Prison 

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 3:08-cv-01753)

District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

March 28, 2013

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 24, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________
2

PER CURIAM

Pro Se Appellant Justice Raisdeen Allah, a prisoner confined at the New Jersey 

State Prison, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of 

New Jersey granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary 

judgment and denying his motion for summary judgment for his civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and from an order denying his motion for reconsideration. 

Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm. 

See 3d Cir. L.A.R 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

Because we primarily write for the parties, we need only recite the facts necessary 

for our discussion. Allah’s claims concern conditions of his confinement. Specifically, 

for a three-month period, from August 31, 2006 to November 21, 2006, Allah was housed 

in cell 32, on the seven wing housing unit. Allah claimed that the cell had extensive 

water damage. During Allah’s placement in cell 32, he stated that it rained 

approximately twelve times, and that after each time it rained, the cell leaked. The 

problems with the cell were on the days it rained, and two or three days after it rained, not 

consistently for three months. Allah stated that he suffered headaches and from sleep 

deprivation from having to sleep on wet and cold sheets. He also stated that he was 

afraid he would get shocked because of the way the light fixture was installed in his cell, 

but that he was never actually shocked. Moreover, Allah alleged that the Appellees knew 
3

about the water problem in his cell, but failed to act. Allah claimed that these conditions 

violated the Eighth Amendment. 

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted 

the Appellees’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment and denied 

Allah’s motion for summary judgment, because, among other reasons, Allah did not meet 

the standard for an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. Allah

subsequently filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s judgment, 

which the District Court denied. Allah timely filed this appeal.

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Allah’s timely appeal 

from the denial of his motion for reconsideration “brings up the underlying judgment for 

review,” McAlister v. Sentry Ins. Co., 958 F.2d 550, 552-53 (3d Cir. 1992), we will 

review the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellees and denial of 

summary judgment to Allah, as well as its denial of Allah’s motion for reconsideration, 

even though the notice of appeal expressly seeks to appeal only the denial of the motion 

for reconsideration. LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217, 225 

n.6 (3d Cir. 2007). We exercise plenary review of a district court’s order granting or 

denying summary judgment, applying the same standard as the district court. See Tri–M 

Grp., LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). We will affirm only if “drawing 

all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue as to 
4

any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. 

The same standards and burdens apply on cross-motions for summary judgment. 

Appelmans v. City of Phila., 826 F.2d 214, 216 (3d Cir. 1987). We review the denial of a 

motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 

669 (3d Cir. 2010). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s decision if the appeal 

presents no substantial question. See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

III.

The Eighth Amendment protects prison inmates from cruel and unusual 

punishment. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). However, not all 

deficiencies and inadequacies in prison conditions amount to a violation of a prisoner’s 

constitutional rights. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981). To assert an Eighth 

Amendment conditions of confinement claim, a prisoner must satisfy both an objective 

and subjective test. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). Specifically, a 

prisoner must show that the alleged deprivation is “sufficiently serious” and that he has 

been deprived of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer, 511 U.S. 

at 834 (1994). A prisoner must also demonstrate that “he is incarcerated under conditions 

posing a substantial risk of serious harm” and that prison officials possessed a 

“sufficiently culpable state of mind” and demonstrated “deliberate indifference” to his 

health or safety. Id. However, only “extreme deprivations” are sufficient to present a 
5

claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.1, 

8-9 (1992). 

We agree with the District Court that Allah has not met the objective prong of the 

test, as the conditions to which Allah was exposed do not rise to the level of extreme 

deprivation. The record shows that the problem with the rain was not consistent for the 

three months Allah was housed in cell 32, but that it was only a problem for the day it 

rained and two or three days thereafter. According to Allah, it rained approximately 

twelve times during the three months that he was housed in cell 32. While Allah alleges 

he suffered headaches as a result of the water leaking in his cell and suffered some 

discomfort, the record shows that Allah did not suffer any substantial injury to his person 

or property. The record shows that the prison complied with constitutional standards at 

the most basic level, and Allah does not provide any evidence from which a reasonable 

jury could conclude that he was deprived of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s 

necessities,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (1994), or that his health and safety were at risk. 

See Hassine v. Jeffes, 846 F.2d 169, 174-75 (3d Cir. 1988). 

Because the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment inquiry cannot be satisfied 

on the undisputed facts presented here, there is no need to address the subjective prong. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court properly granted the Appellees’ motion 

for summary judgment and properly denied Allah’s motion for summary judgment.

IV.
6

Generally, motions for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(e) must rely on one of the following three grounds: “(1) an intervening change in 

controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error 

of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 

2010) (per curiam) (citation omitted). We agree with the District Court that Allah’s 

motion for reconsideration does not meet the requirements necessary to permit the 

District Court to reconsider its decision. 

V.

For the foregoing reasons, no substantial question is presented and we will affirm 

the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Appellant’s 

motion to stay the proceedings is denied.1

 

1 Because we find that Allah has failed to assert a valid Eighth Amendment conditions of 

confinement claim, there is no need to address whether Allah exhausted his 

administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, or whether 

Allah’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.