Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Deegan v. Camden County Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 7, 2017

CHRISTOPHER C. DEEGAN, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.

          Christopher C. Deegan, Plaintiff Pro Se.

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Christopher C. Deegan seeks to bring a civil rights complaint against Camden County Department of Corrections (“CCDOC”) 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: “Every time since I was 18 being locked up in Camden Department of Corrections I would be on the floor from booking in the holding cell [a]n[d] going to bathroom in a holding cell with as many as 10 - 20 guys . . . [Y]ou have to be on floor sleeping in urine with rodents [a]n[d] bugs. And inmates that stunk and had bad mercer [sic] and boils.” Complaint § III(C).

         Plaintiff states that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred: “1/29/2007; 4/3/2006; 6/26/2008; 12/11/2004.” Id. § III(B).

         Plaintiff's alleged injuries arising from these claims are “panic attacks” and “back problems.” Id. § IV.

         Plaintiff is “asking the maximum amount of compensation that is given for someone in the conditions that I went through.” 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. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.