United States District Court, D. New Jersey
JOHN D. FLOWERS, Plaintiff,
CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS, Defendant.
D. Flowers, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff John D. Flowers seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Camden County Board of Freeholders (“BOF”) for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
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.
the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss without
prejudice Plaintiff's claims regarding conditions of
confinement, for failure to state a claim (28 U.S.C. §
Of Confinement Claims: Dismissed Without
Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim, with respect to Plaintiff's
contentions (Complaint § III(A), § III(C))
regarding conditions of confinement at Camden County
Correctional Facility (“CCCF”). 28 U.S.C. §
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.
survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a
claim, 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
complaint must plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable
inference that a constitutional violation has occurred in
order to survive this Court's review under § 1915.
However, with respect to the alleged facts giving rise to
Plaintiff's claims, the present Complaint states:
“Forced to endure inhumane living conditions while
incarcerated in the Camden County Correctional
Facility.” Complaint § III(C).
Plaintiff states that these events occurred: “2/25/15 -
3/30/15.” Id. § III(B).
Plaintiff does not identify or otherwise describe any injury
sustained in connection with the ...