United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Nelson, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge.
Nahfee Nelson seeks to bring a civil rights complaint against
Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”),
Warden James Owens (“Owens”), Warden J. Taylor
(“Taylor”), and Camden County Board of
Freeholders (“BOF”) 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 placed in a cell with 4
inmates[.] I was placed on the floor . . . with urine and
species [sic] on the floor.” Complaint §
states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims
occurred: “In around 2005, 2006, 2007[.]”
Id. § III(B).
respect to alleged injuries arising from these claims,
Plaintiff states: “No[, ] just bumped my head on toilet
seat and the dark in the room.” Id. § IV.
is “asking the Court for $1.1 million for violating my
rights and mental stress, mental anguish and harsh conditions
at the 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