United States District Court, D. New Jersey
DUSTIN D. DAVID, Plaintiff,
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.
D. David, Plaintiff Pro Se.
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge.
Dustin D. David 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: “I was forced to sleep on the floors
of this jail due to it being crowded. There were times I had
to sleep underneath tables and bunkbeds because the rooms are
so small.” Complaint § III(C).
states that the alleged events giving rise to his claims
occurred: “March, April, July 2009[;] September
2012.” Id. § III(B).
respect to alleged injuries from these events, Plaintiff
states: “None major, but I would wake up with pain in
my side and back. I would also get neck cramps from the floor
due to not having a pillow to sleep on.” Id.
respect to requested relief, Plaintiff states: “I would
just like to recieve [sic] what I deserve. No one
should go through jail in those conditions, no matter what
you did to get there. From the least to the max amount,
I['m] fine with either.” 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