United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Bailey, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Joseph Bailey seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden David
Owens (“Warden”) and Camden County Correctional
Facility (“CCCF”) for allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. 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 was incarcerated from January to December 2014 and
during this time, slept in an overcrowded cell with three
other inmates. Complaint ¶ 6. Plaintiff states they
constantly had to step over him to use the toilet, the floors
were dirty and cleaning supplies were not provided, his
sheets were not changed regularly, the food was cold and they
often had to stand to eat. Id. He further states he
sustained rashes due to the showers which had 100 inmates
using 2-3 showers. Id. He states the overcrowdedness
[sic] led to many fights.
further states he law library privileges were limited due to
too many people on the library list. Id. He also
states his visits were cancelled repeatedly due to visitors
exceeding the maximum limit. Id.
seeks to be compensated for the conditions he sustained in
the CCCF. 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