United States District Court, D. New Jersey
KASHIFE H. WYCKOFF, Plaintiff,
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
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE JUDGE
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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