Caldwell v. Camden County Correctional Facility

          Henry Omar Caldwell, Plaintiff Pro Se.

          OPINION

          HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Henry Omar Caldwell 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.

         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: “Entered into facility where no adequate sleeping arrangements were made available to me as well as other inmates. County failed to provide habitable sleeping conditions.” Complaint § III(C).

         With respect to allegations of injuries sustained from these events, Plaintiff states: “My back still bothers me till this very day.” Id. § IV.

         Plaintiff states that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred: “2004, 2005, 2010.” Id. § III(B).

         Plaintiff is “seeking monetary reciprocity for the inconvenience I sustained while an inmate at Camden County Jail.” 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. ...