United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. SIMANDLE United States District Judge
Plaintiff Antoine Rahim Davis seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden
County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires courts to review complaints
prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis. Courts 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.
the reasons set forth below, the Court will: (a) dismiss the
Complaint with prejudice as to claims made against CCCF; and
(b) dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to
state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
Against CCCF: Dismissed With Prejudice
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
for alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional
rights. In order to set forth a prima facie case
under § 1983, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a person
deprived him of a federal right; and (2) the person who
deprived him of that right acted under color of state or
territorial law.” Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan,
47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Gomez v.
Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980)).
is not a “person” for purposes of actions under
42 U.S.C. § 1983; that is, CCCF is not a “state
actor” within the meaning of § 1983. See
Crawford v. McMillian, 660 Fed.Appx. 113, 116 (3d Cir.
2016) (“[T]he prison is not an entity subject to suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (citing Fischer v.
Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)); Grabow v.
Southern State Corr. Facility, 726 F.Supp. 537, 538-39
(D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility is not a
“person” under § 1983)
Therefore, the Complaint does not allege that a
“person” within the meaning of § 1983
deprived Plaintiff of a federal right and does not meet the
standards necessary to set forth a prima facie case
under § 1983. Accordingly, the claims against the CCCF
must be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff may be able to amend the Complaint to name a person
or persons who were personally involved in the alleged
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The Court
therefore grants Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint
within 30 days of the date that this Opinion and Order are
entered on the docket.
Of Confinement Claims: Dismissed Without
the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the
Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim as
to alleged overcrowded conditions of confinement at CCCF. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
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). Accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); 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) (emphasis added). In short, a
complaint must plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable
inference that a constitutional violation has occurred in
order to survive this Court's review under § 1915.
Here, however, the Complaint states only that Plaintiff slept
“on the floor with four other inmates in a room that
was unsanitary and uncomfortable . . . [CCCF] officers placed
me in rooms with four other inmates which was
uncomfortable.” Complaint § III(C).
Plaintiff states that these events occurred “3-18-2004,
2-26-2010, 8-12-2010, 6-21-2013, 8-23-2014, ...