United States District Court, D. New Jersey
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.
...