United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Stephen Thomas Young, Sr., Plaintiff Pro Se
OPINION
JEROME
B. SIMANDLE JUDGE
1.
Plaintiff Stephen Thomas Young, Sr. seeks to bring a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”)
for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
2. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires courts to review complaints
prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis. Courts 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.
3. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will: (1) dismiss the
Complaint with prejudice as to claims made against CCCF; and
(2) dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to
state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
4.
First, the Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice as to
claims made against CCCF because defendant is not a
“state actor” within the meaning of § 1983.
See Crawford v. McMillian, 660 F. App'x 113, 116
(3d Cir. Oct. 21, 2016) (“[T]he prison is not an entity
subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (citing
Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir.
1973)); Grabow v. Southern State Corr. Facility, 726
F.Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility is
not a “person” under § 1983).
5.
Second, for the reasons set forth below, the Court will
dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state
a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
6. The
present Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to support
a reasonable inference that a constitutional violation has
occurred in order to survive this Court's review under
§ 1915. Even accepting the statements in Plaintiff's
Complaint as true for screening purposes only, there is not
enough factual support for the Court to infer a
constitutional violation has occurred.
7. To
survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a
claim[1], the 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)). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are
liberally construed, “pro se litigants still
must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a
claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704
F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (emphasis
added).
8. With
respect to alleged facts giving rise to his claims, the
Complaint states in its entirety: “Broke out in big
rash that need[ed] bacterial ointment. I was placed in
holding where the cell wasn't clean[, ] toilets were
overflowing and water in the sink didn't work.”
Complaint § III(C).
9.
Plaintiff states that the purported events giving rise to
these claims occurred: “1/2006 - 1/2016.”
Id. § III(B).
10.
Plaintiff contends that he sustained “big red irrated
[sic] rash on my back, stomach and face that I had
to use an antibacterial ointment, and took an
antibiotic.” Id. § IV.
11.
Plaintiff seeks “compensation for the encovience
[sic] and embarrassment.” Id. §
V.
12.
These claims must be dismissed without prejudice because the
Complaint does not set forth enough factual support for the
Court to ...