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.

Gibson v. Warden

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

March 27, 2018

RAYMOND GIBSON, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID OWENS WARDEN, CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant.

          Raymond Gibson, Plaintiff Pro Se.

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         1. By Complaint received at the Clerk's Office of this Court on October 3, 2016 (Docket Entry 1) (“Original Complaint”), plaintiff Raymond Gibson (“Plaintiff”) sought to bring a civil rights action against Warden David Owens (“Owens”), as Warden of Camden County Correctional Facility, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The Original Complaint alleged: “The warden has allowed myself and others to sleep on the floor. These overcrowded conditions have subjected me to unsanitary conditions which breed infections such as boils and mercer [sic]. The overcrowded conditions also breed violence in a[n] already unsafe environment. These conditions have me subjected to back pains, sore muscles, and repeated nightmares from living in such a volatile environment. The inhumane conditions at C.C.C.F. from 8/13/15 to 9/28/16 have taken a toll on my physical and mental health.” Id. § 6.

         2. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77, requires a court to review complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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.

         3. In accordance with these directives of the PLRA, this Court undertook the requisite screening and, by Order (“Dismissal Order”) and Opinion (“Dismissal Opinion”) dated March 9, 2017: (a) dismissed the Original Complaint without prejudice; (b) ruled that Plaintiff's Notice, which was docketed on February 8, 2017 and which sought to add Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) and Freeholders Associated with Board of Directioneers as defendants, did not constitute an amended complaint; and (c) granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before April 8, 2017. (Docket Entries 7 and 8.)

         4. On April 13, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to submit his proposed amended complaint. Plaintiff's deadline to do so was on or before May 13, 2017. (Docket Entry 10 (“Extension Order”).)

         5. On May 30, 2017, the Clerk's Office of this Court received a proposed Amended Complaint from Plaintiff, once again asserting claims arising from incarceration at CCCF (Docket Entry 11 (“Amended Complaint”)) and premising his unconstitutional conditions of confinement claims upon “overcrowded housing” (id. at ¶ 3), as follows:

a. [P]laintiff is challenging the existing policies and customs associated with housing inmates in overcrowded unsanitary housing units that breed violence . . . [Plaintiff] was not only forced to sleep on the floor but also given the task of finding cellmates willing to allow him floor space. One man cells are converted into two man cells with a third or fourth person having to sleep on the floor . . . The plaintiff therefore has to challenge the failure to act in regards to inmate safety (id.);
b. The [B]oard of Freeholders is directly responsible for the policies regarding overcrowding within the C.C.C.F. and the Warden[, ] Deputy Warden[, ] and Chief of C.C.C.F. is [sic] directly responsible for the enforcement of these policies . . . The true motive for the [F]reeholders [A]ssociation is purely profit (id. at ¶¶ 2, 4); and
c. The Camden County Prosecutors Office is named for malicious prosecution, namely raising the original charges to a higher court based solely on the plaintiff's priors and not the facts of the case. The prosecutor's office did not have probable cause to wave up the indictment because there was no sworn affidavit signed against the plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

         6. The Amended Complaint names as defendants: Warden David Owens (“Owens”), Deputy Warden C. Johnson (“Johnson”), Chief J. Thompson (“Thompson”), Camden County Correctional Facility Freeholders (“the Freeholders”), and Camden County Prosecutors Office (“the Prosecutor's Office”). (Id. at page 1.) Owens, Johnson and Thompson are referred to collectively in this Opinion as “the Individual Defendants.”

         7. As to Plaintiff's claims of unconstitutional overcrowding at CCCF, the Amended Complaint seeks “monetary compensation in the amount of $1, 500, 000” from “the freeholders association” and from “a responsible official who does not prevent the conspiratorial acts [of] overcrowded units.” Plaintiff seeks these damages for his “pain, suffering and future loss of wages from the same individuals lining their pockets for years by disregarding the safety and well-being of inmates.” (Id. at ¶¶ 4 and 6.)

         8. As to Plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution against the Prosecutor's Office, the Amended Complaint seeks “damages in the sum of $1, 500, 000.” (Id. at ¶ 5.)

         9. Plaintiff has not incorporated his previously filed Complaint (Docket Entry 1) into Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 11).

         10. This action is again subject to judicial screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

         11. Pursuant to the PLRA's screening mandate, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint: (a) must be dismissed with prejudice as to its unconstitutional overcrowding claims, for failure to state a claim; (b) must be dismissed with prejudice as to overcrowded conditions of confinement claims against the Individual Defendants and the Freeholders, for failure to state a claim; and (c) must be dismissed with prejudice as to its malicious prosecution claims against the Prosecutor's Office, for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         DISCUSSION

         I. The Proposed Amended Complaint Is ...


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.