United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Revell, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE JUDGE
Rhonda Revell seeks to bring a civil rights complaint against
Camden County (“County”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of
confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
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 28
U.S.C. § 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 put in a room with 4 other
females. When I got into the cell the only place for my mat
was directly by the toilet and the door. I was the last
person to fit in the cell . . . It was too many females in my
cell. ” Complaint § III(C).
respect to purported injuries in connection with these
alleged events, Plaintiff alleges “constant back
problems” and “unable to sit for long periods of
time.” Id. § IV.
states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims
occurred: “Early or mid 2000's during the
summertime.” Id. § III(B).
seeks “any moneys [sic] approved in this
matter.” 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