United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Jonathan Alvelo, Plaintiff Pro Se.
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE, JUDGE.
Plaintiff Jonathan Alvelo seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Camden County Jail (“CCJ”). Complaint, Docket
Section 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.
the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the
complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege, first, the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that
the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person
acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d
560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania,
36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56 (3d Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff names the CCJ as the sole defendant. However, a
prison is not a “state actor” within the meaning
of § 1983. See Crawford v. McMillian, No.
16-3412, 2016 WL 6134846, *2 (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 2016)
(“[T]he prison is not an entity subject to suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (citing Fischer v.
Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)). The claims
against it must therefore be dismissed with prejudice.
Further, the present Complaint does not allege sufficient
facts to support a reasonable inference that a constitutional
violation has occurred in order to survive this Court's
review under § 1915. Even accepting the statements in
Plaintiff's Complaint as true for screening purposes
only, there is not enough factual support for the Court to
infer a constitutional violation has occurred.
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).
“[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
(2007)). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are
liberally construed, “pro se litigants 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
complaint must plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable
inference that a constitutional violation has occurred in
order to survive this Court's review under § 1915.
However, with respect to the alleged facts giving rise to
Plaintiff's claims, the present Complaint states:
“When I arrived to the Jail I was tased [sic] by the
marshal that caused holes on my body that the County Jail did
nothing about…then overcrowded caused to sleep on
floor…every time we asked for toilet paper they
denied.” Complaint § III(C).
Plaintiff states this occurred on October 13, 2016
“until I was shipped out.” Id. §
Plaintiff states that the “county did nothing about the
holes in my body.” Id. § IV.
the requested relief, Plaintiff requests “pay me out
for my rights as human we shouldn't have to get treated