United States District Court, D. New Jersey
SHANETTA L. MOONER, Plaintiff,
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.
Shanetta L. Mooner, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE JUDGE
Shanetta L. Mooner seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
against Camden County Jail (“CCJ”) 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 alleges: “Place[d] in overcrow[d]ed cells in
addition to sleeping on the floor. There were [sic]
a massive amount of people incarsurated [sic] and I
had to be placed on a cold floor with people whom
[sic] suffer from sickness. Therefore, I suffered
from neck and back injuries, and boils on my skin from
sleeping on the floor.” Complaint § III(C).
states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims
occurred “numerous time[s] through-out these specific
year[s][:] 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007.” § III(B).
claims to have sustained neck and back injuries, PTSD, and
anxiety. Id. § IV. Plaintiff claims that
“no medical attention was given.” Id.
seeks $25, 000 in relief. 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