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.

Callaway v. Cumberland County Sheriff Department

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 3, 2015

OREADER CALLAWAY, Plaintiff,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al, Defendants.

Oreader Callaway, New Jersey State Prison, Trenton, NJ, Plaintiff Pro se.

OPINION

NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.

On or about August 4, 2014, Plaintiff Oreader Callaway, a prisoner presently confined at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). This case was twice previously administratively terminated for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement. (ECF Nos. 3, 7). On or about June 29, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a request to reopen and a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. (EFC No. 10). The case was reopened for review by a judicial officer.

On July 8, 2015, the Court determined that Plaintiff had submitted a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and he was granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff was informed that this case remained subject to sua sponte screening by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

The Court has had the opportunity to review the instant Complaint 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons set forth below, the Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's claims arise from an incident which occurred on April 25, 2014 while Plaintiff was detained in a Cumberland County Court holding cell. (Compl. 4, ECF No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff states that he was shackled in a holding cell while awaiting a court appearance. Plaintiff contends that his legs became tangled in the shackles and he fell forward, breaking his hand on the "sink/toilet area in the holding cell." Id.

Plaintiff states that he "immediately notified Sheriff Officer Tescoroni as to the immediate swelling and pain, and [he] asked to see medical personel [sic]." Id . Plaintiff states that he was told that, for procedural reasons, he "could not be sent back to the County Jail medical department to address this medical issue until [he was] at least seen by the Judge or released on postponement to a later date." Id . Plaintiff states that he spent at least two to three hours "suffering in pain[.]" Id.

Plaintiff seeks financial compensation for his pain and suffering in the amount of $75, 000. He also would like to implement a change in the duration and practice of leg shackling to prevent future accidents; and requests an assurance that any medical issues that arise while prisoners are in a holding cell awaiting a court appearance will be immediately addressed.

Based on the factual allegations of the Complaint, the Court presumes that Plaintiff means to allege a Fourteenth Amendment violation due to inadequate medical care.[1] The caption of Plaintiff's Complaint names the Cumberland County Sheriff Department and Sheriff Robert Augustino as defendants. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1). However, the body of Plaintiff's Complaint (Compl. 3, ECF No. 1) lists Sheriff Augustino as the only defendant; and the factual allegations of the Complaint (Compl. 4, ECF No. 1) refer only to Sheriff Officer Tescoroni.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Sua Sponte Dismissal

Every complaint must comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).

While a complaint... does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.... Factual allegations ...

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.