United States District Court, D. New Jersey
CHARLES E. GIBSON, Plaintiff,
CHARLES WALKER (WARDEN), LT. SCOTT, SGT. DAVIS, and CAMDEN COUNTY FACILITY, Defendants.
Charles E. Gibson, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge
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.
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.
reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the Complaint
with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §
Complaint states: “Slept on floor, unsanitation
[sic] conditions[, ] walls in shower had mold
growing on them. Medical treatment was unprofessional.”
Complaint § III(C).
claims to have suffered a “rash on knees and
elbows” for which he was “only given ointment to
rub on areas.” Id. § IV.
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 13.” Id. §
contends that “a fair amount for these violations would
be 2, 000 to 3, 000.” 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