United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Harold, Plaintiff Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Otis Harrold (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner at South
Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, seeks to bring a
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(ECF No. 1.) Based on his affidavit of indigence (ECF No.
1-2), the Court will grant him leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and order the Clerk of the Court to file the
time, the Court must review the Complaint, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, 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 should be dismissed
brings this civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, against Defendant Keith McCray. 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 veracity of Plaintiff's allegations.
unspecified date, Defendant McCray, who appears to be an
employee at Talbot Hall, a halfway house, required Plaintiff
to “drop his pants and underwear down to his ankles and
to trun [sic] around with his butt facing the staff which was
McCray and urine [sic] in the cup.” (Compl. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff is seeking $12, 000, 000 in damages. (Id.
at ¶ 7.)
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(e)(2)(B) and 1915A because Plaintiff is
a prisoner who is proceeding as indigent.
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.” Belmont v. MB Inv.
Partners, Inc., 708 F.3d 470, 483 n.17 (3d Cir. 2012)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 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).
Section 1983 Actions
plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights.