United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Gregory Paul Violette, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Gregory Paul Violette's
(“Plaintiff”) submission of a civil rights
complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
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 be dismissed without prejudice.
brings this civil rights action against David Ortiz, warden
of FCI Fort Dix, the Bureau of Prisons'
(“BOP”) General Counsel, and the U.S. Department
of Justice. 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
complaint states in its entirety:
The Building I lived in at Fort Dix Prison was a health risk,
inadequate ventilation in the bathroom, polluted water, toxic
or noxious fumes in the bathroom, exposure to sewage leads
[sic] from sewage pipes while using bathroom, inadequate
lighting in rooms, hallways, and bathroom. Black Mold in
bathroom, smoking in hallways and bathroom, exposure to
second-hand smoke, excessive heat in building 5751 and
bedroom while staff alley and CO's office had A/C.
Complaint § III. He seeks relief in the form of $2, 000,
000. Id. ¶ IV.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) requires a court to screen complaints
filed by in forma pauperis plaintiffs and 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
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,
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) (emphasis added).