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.

Violette v. Ortiz

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

September 15, 2017

GREGORY PAUL VIOLETTE, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN DAVID E. ORTIZ; GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL BOP; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants.

          Gregory Paul Violette, Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before 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.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff's allegations.

         Plaintiff's 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.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Section § 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.

         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, [1] 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) (emphasis added).

         IV. ANALYSIS

         A. ...


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.