United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Sabur Fakhir, Plaintiff Pro Se.
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge.
Abdus Sabur Fakhir seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
against Camden County Jail (“CCJ”) 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 in its entirety: “I was made to sleep
in cell by dirty toilet on floor with 4 other people.”
Complaint § III(C).
states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims
occurred: “6/90 - 7/93.” Id. §
respect to alleged injuries arising from these events,
Plaintiff claims: “Bad back and no medical intention
[sic] was given.” Id. § IV.
respect to relief sought in connection with these claims,
Plaintiff seeks “monetary compensation in the amount
the court finds fair, for the neglect of my health and
welfare.” 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