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.

Wyckoff v. Camden County Correctional Facility

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

September 6, 2017

KASHIFE H. WYCKOFF, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; FORMER WARDEN ERIC TAYLOR; FORMER DEPUTY WARDEN FRANK LOBERTO; CAMDEN COUNTY CLERK JOSEPH RIPA; WARDEN DAVID OWENS; and WARDEN KATE TAYLOR, Defendants.

          KASHIFE H. WYCKOFF, PLAINTIFF PRO SE

          OPINION

          HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Kashife H. Wyckoff seeks to bring a civil rights complaint pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), Former Warden Eric Taylor, Former Deputy Warden Frank Loberto, Camden County Clerk Joseph Ripa, Warden David Owens, and Warden Kate Taylor, for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement in CCCF. Complaint, Docket Entry 1. At this time, the Court must review the complaint 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 that the complaint will proceed in part.

         II. BACKGROUND

         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 allegations.

         Plaintiff alleges he endured unconstitutional conditions of confinement in CCCF during three separate periods of detentions. Plaintiff alleges he was detained in the CCCF in 2005 and 2006 and had to be treated for scabies. Complaint ¶ 6. He further alleges that he was detained in 2009 and 2010 during which he was housed in a two person cell with three other inmates, sleeping on the cement floor. Id. He further alleges that while sleeping on the floor during this detention, he “experienced a tearing sensation and nearly unbearable pain.” Id. He further alleges he suffered a slipped disc in his back and has to wear a hernia retention belt due to this injury. Id.

         Plaintiff further alleges he again was detained starting in October 2016 and is presently confined. During this detention he alleges he “began to experience an acute loss of vision bilaterally in my eyes.” Id. He further states he was treated by the jails sick call who believed his change of vision, loss of vision and serious migraines were related to some environmental factor in the jail. Id.

         Plaintiff seeks for the Court to “rectify this situation as soon as possible and to resolve peacefully monetary values concerning my life and health.” Complaint ¶ 7.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A. Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal

         Per the 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, 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and is seeking redress from government officials about 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). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, they “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).

         B. ...


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.