United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Carter, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge
Taner Carter 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
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: “Was sleeping on the
floor the whole time I was in there.” Complaint §
states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims
occurred: “09-27-13 to 2-22-14.” Id.
respect to alleged injuries in connection with these events,
Plaintiff contends: “Back problems from sleeping on the
floor and my knees be hurting getting tight can't stand
for alot of time without my knees getting tight.”
Id. § IV.
respect to requested relief, Plaintiff seeks: “I want
help, treatment with all my problems I been having with my
body parts and the max of what yall [sic] giving out
for going threw [sic] this in Camden County
Jail.” 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