Civ. Nos. 97-3093 (DRD), 98-1282 (DRD).United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
November 10, 2004
ORDER
DICKINSON DEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge
Motions for summary judgment having been filed in the case ofJama, et al., v. United States Immigration and NaturalizationService, et al., Civil Action No. 97-3093 by defendants (i) Michael D. Rozos, Earline Boyer, Alan Friess, Norman Uzzle and David McLean (the “INS Officials”);[1] (ii) Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. (“Esmor”); James F. Slattery, John Lima, Richard Staley and Aaron Speisman (the “Esmor Officers”); (iii) Willard Stovall (“Stovall”); (iv)
Page 2
Willie O. Hunter[2] and Michael Jackson; (v) Tommie Lee Brown,[3] Robert Snead[3] Okay Nkenke, Phillip Johnson, and Kevin Brodie; (vi) Dorian Hunter, Michael Melendez, James Stratford[4] and Corey Stratford;[4] (vii) Irving Brown,[5] and the court having reviewed the submissions of the parties and having heard oral argument, and for the reasons set forth in an opinion of even date;
IT is this 10th day of November, 2004;
ORDERED as follows:
1. The motion of the INS Officials for summary judgment is granted and the complaint against the INS Officials is dismissed with prejudice.
2. Esmor’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to theJama Action plaintiffs’ claims (i) that Esmor violated their constitutional rights and were liable to plaintiffs under Bivensv. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), (ii) that Esmor is liable to them as third party beneficiaries under the contract between the INS and Esmor, (iii) that Esmor is liable to plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, (iv) that Esmor is liable to plaintiffs on a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (v) that Esmor subjected plaintiffs to involuntary servitude; and (vi) that Esmor violated plaintiffs’ rights under the New Jersey constitution; and these claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
3. Esmor’s motion for summary judgment is denied as to theJama Action plaintiffs’
Page 3
claims (i) that Esmor is liable to them by virtue of the Alien Tort Claims Act, (ii) that Esmor is liable to them on a state law claim of negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention of its guards and other employees, (iii) that Esmor violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
4. The Esmor Officers’ and Stovall’s motions for summary judgment are granted as to the Jama Action plaintiffs’ claims (i) that they violated their constitutional rights and were liable to plaintiff’s under Bivens, supra, (ii) that the Esmor Officers and Stovall are liable to plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, (iii) that the Esmor Officers and Stovall are liable to plaintiffs on a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, (iv) that the Esmor Officers and Stovall subjected plaintiffs to involuntary servitude, and (v) that the Esmor Officers and Stovall violated plaintiffs rights under the New Jersey constitution and these claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
5. The Esmor Officers’ and Stovall’s motions for summary judgment are denied as to the Jama Action plaintiffs’ claims (i) that the Esmor Officers and Stovall are liable to plaintiffs by virtue of the Alien Tort Claims Act, (ii) that the Esmor Officers and Stovall are liable to plaintiffs on a state law claim of negligent failure to protect plaintiffs’ property and negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention of Esmor’s guards and other employees and (iii) that the Esmor Officers and Stovall violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
6. To the extent that the Jama Action complaint against them has not previously been dismissed, and except for the claims of Cecilia Kou Jeffrey against Phillip Johnson arising out of Phillip Johnson’s alleged sexual harassment of said plaintiff, the motions of the Esmor Guards
Page 4
Willie O. Hunter, Michael Jackson, Tommie Lee Brown, Robert Snead, Okay Nkenke, Phillip Johnson, Kevin Brodie, Dorian Hunter, Michael Melendez, James Stratford, Corey Stratford and Irving Brown for summary judgment are granted in their entirety and theJama Action plaintiffs’ claims against them will be dismissed with prejudice.
7. The motion of Phillip Johnson for summary judgment is denied only as to the claim of Jama Action plaintiff Cecili Kou Jeffrey that said defendant sexually harassed her, giving rise to a Bivens action and an action under state law.