J. SARBOUKH, Plaintiff,
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant.
DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, District Judge.
Plaintiff is currently confined at the Special Treatment Unit - Annex, in Avenel, New Jersey. He has submitted a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Based on the in forma pauperis application, the Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and will order the Clerk to file the complaint.
At this time, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.
In June, 2013, plaintiff submitted the instant complaint to the Court. (See Dkt. No. 1.) For purposes of screening the complaint, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true. The complaint is one page and names the State of New Jersey as the only Defendant. As to Plaintiffs cause of action, he alleges as follows:
Civil Statute 1983 civil rights violated by actions of the State antisematic hate crimes of violence/attempts on my life, civil and constitutional rights and ADA rights violated, traumatic [bodily] injury, teeth knocked out, stabbed. jaw broken, ribs fractured, etc.
(Dkt. No. 1 at p. 1.)
Plaintiff seeks money damages in an amount to be determined. (See id.)
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Standard for Sua Spume Dismissal
The Court is required to identify cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B). According to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, "a pleading that offers labels or conclusions' or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter" to show that the claim is facially plausible. Fowler v. UPMS Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc., 708 F.3d 470, 483 n.17 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting lqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, -pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
B. Section 1983 Actions
A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for certain violations of his Constitutional rights. ...