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.

Whitefield v. Camden County Correctional Facility

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 8, 2017

WILLIAM A. WHITFIELD, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOOSEN FREEHOLDERS, Defendants.

          William A. Whitfield, Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff 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.

         28 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.

         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: “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).

         Plaintiff states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims occurred: “2007.” Id. § III(B).

         Plaintiff claims “mental anquish [sic], duress & back injury” arising from these events. Id. § IV.

         With 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.

         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.