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.

Gibson v. Walker

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 2, 2017

CHARLES E. GIBSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES WALKER (WARDEN), LT. SCOTT, SGT. DAVIS, and CAMDEN COUNTY FACILITY, Defendants.

          Charles E. Gibson, Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Charles E. Gibson seeks to bring a civil rights complaint against Charles Walker (Warden) (“Walker”), Lt. Scott (“Scott”), Sgt. Davis (“Davis”), and Camden County Facility (“CCF”) 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: “Slept on floor, unsanitation [sic] conditions[, ] walls in shower had mold growing on them. Medical treatment was unprofessional.” Complaint § III(C).

         Plaintiff claims to have suffered a “rash on knees and elbows” for which he was “only given ointment to rub on areas.” Id. § IV.

         Plaintiff states that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred “Dec 2000 to Sept 2000. March 2008 to Dec 2008. Dec 2012 to Oct [20]13.” Id. § III(B).

         Plaintiff contends that “a fair amount for these violations would be 2, 000 to 3, 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.