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.

Andrey Scott v. Burlington County Correc.Facility

January 7, 2011

ANDREY SCOTT,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BURLINGTON COUNTY CORREC.FACILITY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, District Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Andrey Scott, a prisoner incarcerated at Burlington County Jail, seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This Court will grant Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and direct the Clerk to file the Complaint and Amended Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Having reviewed Plaintiff's allegations, this Court will dismiss the federal claims raised in the Complaint and Amended Complaint, without prejudice to the filing of a second amended complaint, and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action against Burlington County Jail, inmate Lamar Nevius, and corrections officers Cox, Cauley, Neigrich, Ahmad, Walsh, McMillen, Heisler and John Doe.*fn1 He asserts the following facts in the Complaint, which allegedly occurred while he was confined at the jail. On February 12, 2010, inmate Lamar Nevius attacked Plaintiff with a razor for no reason while Plaintiff was eating dinner in the dining hall, cutting Plaintiff's face, ear and neck. Plaintiff maintains that the incident was caught on tape and witnessed by several officers. Plaintiff alleges that on February 18, 2010, CO Neigrich, who witnessed the attack, told Plaintiff that he should have had a shank when Nevius attacked him. Plaintiff contends that "Burlington County is also responsible for not taking acts they should have like searches before and after we eat, plac[ing] themsel[ve]s on all perimeters of this chow hall and giv[ing] inmates this instrument which almost killed me." (Docket Entry #1, p.7.)

Plaintiff thereafter submitted an Amended Complaint. (Docket Entry #3.) He asserts the following facts:

On 2-12-10 at 6:15 pm approx. E-Wing was called out for the mess hall. As I arrive[d] to eat, I was attack[ed] by a fellow inmate "Lamar Nevius" which he use[d] a knife to cause me bodily harm by vividly stabbing me on the right side of my face and cutting my ear causing wanton pain. And also cutting me across the throat, vividly trying to cause death towards my person. As I was being attacked I look[ed] around for officers for assistance but there wasn't none until a few minutes later. (See: camera videotape).

As inmate Lamar Nevius was attacking me v[ic]iously S/C.O. Ahmed, S/C.O. Neigrich, S/C.O. Welsh was in one group in the corner talking while Sgt. Cauley, S/C.O. McMillen, S/C.O. Heisler and John Doe's w[ere] in another set of group talking amongst themselves and not paying attention to their surrounding[s] while on duty in the mess "per regulation" as it took these officers several minutes to respond. (See: mess hall camera). On 1-12-10 at 6:15 pm approx. I was v[ic]iously attack[ed] and had severe injuries cause[d] by an attack that officers Ahmed, Neigrich, Walsh, McMillen, Heisler, Sgt. Cauley let go unnotice[d] for a few minutes which vividly violates rules and regulations. These officers were reckless, careless and w[ere] not there to protect and serve. (See: mess hall camera tape).

Sgt. Cauley and officers are suppose[d] to search inmates upon entering the mess hall like they do when exiting, which cause[d] me wanton pain. These officers [were] "deliberate[ly] indifferen[t]" to my constitution[al] rights which they acted in a malicious way. (See: mess hall video camera).

On 2-12-10 6:30 pm I was taken to medical and den[ied] proper treatment at that time. No pictures w[ere] taken on 2-12-10 of my injuries or the next [day,] no special investigation department interview with me nor w[ere] any charges file[d] in my behalf by S.I.O. (internal affairs). (Docket Entry #3, pp. 2-3.)

Plaintiff seeks damages of $12,500,000.00 for violation of his constitutional rights.

II. STANDARD FOR DISMISSAL

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996), requires the Court, prior to docketing or as soon as practicable after docketing, to review a complaint in a civil action in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis or a prisoner seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. The PLRA requires the Court to sua sponte dismiss any claim if the Court determines that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. A claim is frivolous if it "lacks even an arguable basis in law" or its factual allegations describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); see also Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990).

The pleading standard under Rule 8 was refined by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 ...


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.