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.

Campbell v. Camden County Jail

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 23, 2018

ALLEGRA CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.

          Allegra Campbell, Plaintiff Pro Se.

          OPINION

          HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         1. 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.)

         2. 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.

         II. BACKGROUND

         3. 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 truth or merits of any of Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint.

         4. 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”).)

         5. Plaintiff alleges that these events occurred during “February 27, 2015 to March 2, 2015.” (Id. § III(B).)

         6. 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.)

         7. Plaintiff seeks $25, 000 in relief. (Id. § V.)

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         8. 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 pauperis.

         9. To survive sua sponte screening, [1] 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).

         IV. ...


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.