United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Raymond Gibson, Plaintiff Pro Se.
B. SIMANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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.)
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”).)
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),
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.)
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.”
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.)
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.)
Plaintiff has not incorporated his previously filed Complaint
(Docket Entry 1) into Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
(Docket Entry 11).
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.
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).
The Proposed Amended Complaint Is ...