United States District Court, D. New Jersey
NICHOLAS W. KURTZ, Plaintiff,
ATLANTIC COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITY; WARDEN GERALDINE D. COHEN; B.V. ROBINSON, Defendants.
Nicholas W. Kurtz, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge
the Court is Plaintiff Nicholas Kurtz's
(“Plaintiff”), submission of a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Complaint,
Docket Entry 1. Plaintiff is currently confined at Atlantic
County Justice Facility (“ACJF”), At this time,
the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A to determine whether it
should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
concludes the complaint will be dismissed.
filed this complaint against ACJF Warden Geraldine Cohen and
Medical Director Robinson (collectively
“Defendants”). Complaint ¶ 3. The following
factual allegations are taken from the complaint and are
accepted for purposes of this screening only. The Court has
made no findings as to the truth of Plaintiff's
alleges he was injured on June 13, 2016 when he fell off of
the concrete cylinders in ACJF's recreational yard on
which he was exercising. Id. ¶ 4, pg. 6.
Medical staff examined him on June 17 and referred Plaintiff
to Dr. Robinson. Id. at 6. Dr. Robinson examined
Plaintiff on June 29 and recommended Plaintiff have a MRI of
his shoulder. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff filed this
complaint on July 5 alleging he has not yet been scheduled
for a MRI.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal
Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134,
§§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26,
1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review
complaints in those civil actions in which a prisoner is
proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress against a governmental
employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b),
or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions,
see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs
district courts to 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) and 1915A because
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis
and is seeking relief from governmental employees, and under
§ 1997e because Plaintiff is bringing claims regarding
the conditions of his confinement. According to the Supreme
Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “a
pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions' or
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.'” 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)). To 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)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court
must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
93-94 (2007) (following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)); see also United States v. Day, 969
F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). However, 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
Section 1983 Actions
A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for certain violations of his ...