United States District Court, D. New Jersey
WILLIAM A. WHITFIELD, Plaintiff,
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOOSEN FREEHOLDERS, Defendants.
William A. Whitfield, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE JUDGE
William A. Whitfield seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
against the Camden County Correctional Facility
(“CCCF”) and the Camden County Board of Choosen
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: “Forced to share a 2 man room with
three to four people which resulted in my sleeping on the
floor . . . The Board of Freeholders failed to impose the
administrative code regarding the capacity of Camden County
Jail.” Complaint § III(C).
states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims
occurred: “2007.” Id. § III(B).
claims “mental anquish [sic], duress &
back injury” arising from these events. Id.
respect to requested relief, Plaintiff states:
“Compensate me with the most monetary amount possible,
attorney fees & any other appropriate compensation this
Court deems necessary.” 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