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.

Fitzpatrick v. Camden County Jail

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 2, 2017

SAMANTHA FITZPATRICK, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.

          Samantha Fitzpatrick Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief U.S. District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Samantha Fitzpatrick seeks to bring a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden County Jail (“CCJ”) for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.

         28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires courts to review complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Courts must 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) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court will: (1) dismiss the Complaint with prejudice as to claims made against CCJ; and (2) dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff's Complaint states in its entirety: “It was always over crowded so I ended up on the floor. It was very cold[.] People were walking over you and on you. It didn't matter who you told[;] no one cared and it seemed normal because almost everyone had to. Women would argue over who was getting a bunk.” Complaint § III(C). Plaintiff alleges that she “got boils from laying [sic] on the dirty floor.” Id. § IV.

         Plaintiff contends that the events giving rise to her claims occurred: “April 2009 to Aug 2009[;] Jan 2010[;] Apr 2010[;] Nov 2010[;] March 2011[;] June 2011[;] Aug 2011[;] 2012[;] 2013[;] 2014[;] different months every year since 2009.” Id. § III(B).

         Plaintiff does not describe or identify any relief sought. Id. § V.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         To survive sua sponte screening under § 1915(e)(2) 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.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014). “[A] pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

         IV. ...


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.