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.

Jackson v. Camden County Correctional Facility

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 2, 2017

OTTIS R. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant.

          Ottis R. Jackson Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

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

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Ottis R. Jackson seeks to bring a civil rights complaint against the Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.

         28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) requires a court to review complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court 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 Section 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 the CCJ because defendant is not a “state actor” within the meaning of § 1983; 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: “Place[d] in over-crowded cells, confined spaces with sick, violent and angry individuals. Slept on floors because too many people were placed in the cell. I told them that I had a bad back, a heart condition, and PTSD. Correction officers failed to acknowledge my medical condition with my bad back, heart condition, and PTSD.” Complaint § III(C).

         Plaintiff alleges to have suffered “severe back injuries from sleeping on the floor, anxiety attacks, giving [sic] no medical attention. Denied medication I take [sic] before incarceration.” Id. § IV.

         With respect to the time of the alleged events giving rise to his claims, Plaintiff states: “Detain [sic] on more than one occasion[;] exact dates unknown[.] Anywhere from 2002-2015 on.” Id. § III(B).

         Plaintiff “would like the courts to compensate me for inhumane treatment, overcrowding, ignoring my pleas to seek medical attention, and the physical and mental anguish I suffered. Violation of my civil rights. No amount of money can account for my horrific experience. I'm seeking $250, 000.” Id. § V.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         To survive sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim, a 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.