United States District Court, D. New Jersey
GRADY N. JENKINS, Plaintiff,
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and CAMDEN BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS, Defendants.
N. Jenkins, Plaintiff Pro Se.
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge.
Grady N. Jenkins seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
against the Camden County Correctional Facility
(“CCCF”) and the Camden Board of Freeholders
(“BOF”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Complaint, Docket Entry 1. Based on Plaintiff's affidavit
of indigency, the Court will grant his application to proceed
in forma pauperis.
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: “Was forced to sleep on floor due to
overcrowding. The warden failed to adhered [sic] to
the decree issued by the 3rd district court. Board
of Freeholders failure to enforce administrative code
regarding housing of county jail inmates.” Complaint
states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims
occurred: “2006.” Id. § III(B).
claims “mental anquish [sic], duress &
back pain” injuries arising from these events.
Id. § IV.
seeks “monetary, punitive, lawyer fees & any
appropreate [sic] relief” in connection with
his claims. 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