United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Shirley Diane Savage, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff Shirley Diane Savage seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden
County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), Municipal
Court of Camden (“Municipal Court”), Judge Traben
(“Traben”), Judge Freibert
(“Freibert”), and unnamed judges presiding in
pending court proceedings where Plaintiff is a party
(“Unnamed Judges”) (Traben, Freibert, and Unnamed
Judges collectively referred to as “the Judges”)
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, this Court will dismiss the
Complaint with prejudice in part and dismiss it without
prejudice in part, as follows:
a. Claims made against CCF are dismissed with prejudice;
b. Claims for false arrest / false imprisonment of Plaintiff
in 2010 are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim, on the grounds that such claims are time-barred under
the statute of limitations;
c. Claims for false arrest / false imprisonment arising from
Plaintiff's arrest and incarceration prior to November 3,
2014 (i.e., two years before the date Plaintiff
filed her Complaint in this present case) are dismissed with
prejudice, on the grounds that such claims are time-barred
under the statute of limitations;
d. Claims for false arrest / false imprisonment arising from
Plaintiff's arrest and incarceration on or after November
3, 2014 are dismissed without prejudice;
e. Claims made against Municipal Court, the Judges, and the
Unnamed Judges are dismissed with prejudice, on the grounds
of absolute judicial immunity from suit; and
f. Claims for overcrowded conditions of confinement are
dismissed without prejudice, on grounds of insufficiency of
pleading for Plaintiff's failure to (i) specifically name
the party(ies) whom Plaintiff alleges are liable on the
overcrowded conditions of confinement claim, and (ii) set
forth sufficient factual support for this Court to infer that
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 added).
Against CCCF: Dismissed With Prejudice
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
for alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional
rights. In order to set forth a prima facie case
under § 1983, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a person
deprived him of a federal right; and (2) the person who
deprived him of that right acted under color of state or
territorial law.” Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan,
47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Gomez v.
Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980)).
Generally, for purposes of actions under § 1983,
“[t]he term ‘persons' includes local and
state officers acting under color of state law.”
Carver v. Foerster, 102 F.3d 96, 99 (3d Cir. 1996)
(citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21
(1991)). To say that a person was “acting
under color of state law” means that the defendant in a
§ 1983 action “exercised power [that the
defendant] possessed by virtue of state law and made possible
only because the wrongdoer [was] clothed with the authority
of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49
(1988) (citation omitted). Generally, then, “a public
employee acts under color of state law while acting in his
official capacity or while exercising his responsibilities
pursuant to state law.” Id. at 50.
Because the Complaint has not sufficiently alleged that a
“person” deprived Plaintiff of a federal right,
the Complaint does not meet the standards necessary to set
forth a prima facie case under § 1983. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from CCCF for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The
CCCF, however, is not a “person” within the
meaning of § 1983; therefore, the claims against it must
be dismissed with prejudice. See Crawford v.
McMillian, 660 F. App'x 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2016)
(“[T]he prison is not an entity subject to suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (citing Fischer v.
Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)); Grabow v.
Southern State Corr. Facility, 726 F.Supp. 537, 538-39
(D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility is not a
“person” under § 1983). Given that the
claims against the CCCF must be dismissed with prejudice, the
claims may not proceed and Plaintiff may not name the CCCF as
Plaintiff may be able to amend the Complaint to name a person
or persons who were personally involved in the alleged
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, however. To that
end, the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to amend the
Complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.
Of Confinement Claim - Overcrowding Allegation: ...