United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Allegra Campbell, Plaintiff Pro Se.
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Allegra Campbell seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden
County Jail (“CCJ”) for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (Complaint,
Docket Entry 1.)
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.
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 or merits of any
of Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint.
Plaintiff alleges she endured unconstitutional conditions of
confinement in CCJ due to an overcrowded and unsanitary
facility where she was denied medical care. (Complaint §
III(C) (“ . . . I slept on the floor. They did not give
me any medical attention when I would ask . . . They also had
black mold along windows, walls & showers”).)
Plaintiff alleges that these events occurred during
“February 27, 2015 to March 2, 2015.”
(Id. § III(B).)
Plaintiff alleges that she suffers ongoing left-hand mobility
and pain issues from a break that occurred and was casted
prior to her incarceration but did not heal properly during
or after her detainment at CCJ. (Id. § IV.)
Plaintiff seeks $25, 000 in relief. (Id. § V.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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
survive sua sponte screening,  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).
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).