United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Maurice Wallace, Plaintiff Pro Se.
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE, JUDGE.
Maurice Wallace seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden County
Jail (“CCJ”) for allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
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 CCJ as he was confined in an overcrowded, unsanitary
facility. Complaint § III. His complaint states:
“I got stripped searched, and I was on the floor for
seven days in lock up and on the floor for 47 days in 3 North
D, and when I was in seven day lock up I caught a boil on my
back and found out ti was MURSA [sic]. No one did nothing, I
told the sargent [sic] and the nurse and they did nothing
about it, just told me to drop a slip, I did and nothing so I
stayed in pain.” Id. He further alleges
“when I caught MURSA [sic] and the boil I was in pain,
I got no medical treatment from no one in the jail, just rude
statements, like your [sic] in jail or drop a slip, I felt
violated when I was striped search for no reason.”
Id. §IV. He seeks relief in the form of
monetary compensation of “five to ten thousand dollar
that's more then fair.” Id. § V.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal
1915(e)(2) requires a court to review complaints prior to
service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis. The Court 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.
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). “[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
Section 1983 Actions
plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights.