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.

Johnson v. D'Illio

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 28, 2015

LARRY JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
S. D'ILLIO, et al., Defendants.

Larry Johnson, Plaintiff Pro Se, New Jersey State Prison, Trenton, New Jersey.

OPINION

ANNE E. THOMPSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Larry Johnson's ("Plaintiff"), submission of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket Entry 1). Plaintiff is a convicted and sentenced state prisoner currently confined at New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP"), Trenton, New Jersey. By Order dated May 7, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Docket Entry 4). At this time, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) (2) and 1915A 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 such relief. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the complaint shall be dismissed with leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint against NJSP Administrator Stephen D'Illio, NJSP Social Worker M. Fon, and John Doe Supervisors of the NJSP Classification department, and John Doe Parole Counselors. (Docket Entry 1). The following factual allegations are taken from the complaint and are accepted for purposes of this screening only. The Court has made no findings as to the veracity of Plaintiff's allegations.

According to Plaintiff's complaint, Administrator D'Illio refused to transfer Plaintiff out of a "hostile environment." He also asserts that D'Illio is part of a conspiracy to have Plaintiff killed upon his release date by "inside NJSP corruption and undercover gang members status [sic]." (Docket Entry 1 at 4).

Plaintiff also asserts that the Supervisors of the NJSP Classification departments refused to transfer Plaintiff out of the "hostile environment, " and that they are part of the conspiracy. (Docket Entry 1 at 5). He states the Parole Counselors are aware of the hostile environment and the fact that he is housed with prisoners serving life terms, however they have refused to transfer him to Pennsylvania so that Plaintiff may be released there on his max out date. (Docket Entry 1 at 5).

Plaintiff states Mr. Fon denied numerous requests for remedies due to the fact that he "is brothers to SCO/Sgt. Carl Stout in NJSP." (Docket Entry 1 at 6).[1] He also states Mr. Fon is part of the conspiracy to kill him upon his release. (Docket Entry 1 at 6).

Plaintiff asks this Court to remove the defendants from their positions and to award him $12.5 m£llion in damages. (Docket Entry 1 at 8).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal

Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996) ("PLRA"), district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 8 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B), seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is 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. This action is subject to sua sponte screening for-dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) (2) (b) and 1915A because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis.

In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); ...


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.