United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Hollingsworth, Plaintiff Pro Se.
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge.
George Hollingsworth 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.
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
reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the Complaint
with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §
Complaint states in its entirety: “Sleep on floor on
[sic] CCCF.” Complaint § III(C).
states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims
occurred: “11-7-11 to 4-9-12.” Id.
respect to alleged injuries from his claims, Plaintiff
contends: “I have reoccuring [sic] back
problems due to this incident. [I] have medical MRI scheduled
and a real problem.” Id. § IV.
his claims for relief, Plaintiff states: “I have
medical issues due to this, and I would like my medical bills
paid[, ] [and] also a monetary compensation.”
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