United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Williams, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE JUDGE
Randy Williams seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
against Camden County Correctional Facility
("CCCF") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
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 Section 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis.
reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the Complaint
with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §
Complaint states in its entirety: “While I was in
Camden County Jail I was forced to sleep on the floor and
that caused back pain that I still have to this day.”
Complaint § III(C).
respect to allegations of injuries sustained from these
events, the Complaint states: “I suffer from back
problems. I have to deal with chronic back pain until this
day.” Id. § IV.
states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims
occurred “(08-09-12) - (08-19-12) [and] (07-10-13) -
(07-19-13).” Id. § III(B).
seeks $25, 000 in monetary relief. Id. § V.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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