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.

Revell v. Camden County

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 8, 2017

RHONDA REVELL, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY, Defendant.

          Rhonda Revell, Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff 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.

         Section 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.

         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: “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).

         With 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.

         Plaintiff states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims occurred: “Early or mid 2000's during the summertime.” Id. § III(B).

         Plaintiff seeks “any moneys [sic] approved in this matter.” 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.