United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Khalil
McMichaels Plaintiff Pro Se
OPINION
JEROME
B. SIMANDLE, Chief U.S. District Judge
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Khalil McMichaels seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
against Camden County Corrections (“CCC”)
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 dismiss the Complaint
with 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: “I slept on the floor
and ate on the floor” in “Camden County
Jail.” Complaint §§ III(C), (A). Plaintiff
alleges to have suffered injuries to “my back. I
received medical treatment, pain pills.” Id.
§ IV. Plaintiff states that the alleged events giving
rise to his claims occurred “Jun 09, 2008.”
Id. § III(B).
Plaintiff
asks the Court “to compensate me.” 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.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
asserts claims against CCC for allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. Plaintiff's claims must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
First,
CCC is not a separate legal entity from Camden County and is
therefore not independently subject to suit. See Bermudez
v. Essex Cty. D.O.C., No. 12-6035, 2013 WL 1405263, at
*5 (D.N.J. Apr. 4, 2013) (citing cases). Plaintiff ...