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.

Rivera v. Camden County Jail

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 30, 2018

JAVIER RIVERA, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.

          Javier Rivera, Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         1. Plaintiff Javier Rivera 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 Plaintiff's allegations.

         4. Plaintiff alleges that he “slept on the floor without sheets or pillows, not even a mattress.” Complaint § III(C). He also complains of being “constantly ask[ed] to have [a] rectal exam or check[], and then was not allow[ed] to put my clo[thes] back on.” Id.

         5. Plaintiff alleges that these events occurred from “June through July 2015 and August through September 2016.” Id. § III(A).

         6. Plaintiff states he has damages of “a lot of inflammation, burning, and itching on my rectum” from the alleged events. Id. § IV.

         7. Regarding requested relief, Plaintiff asks the Court “to do some investigations and see for themselves the poor conditions that inmates are suffering at Camden County Jail, ” and he also seeks $10, 000. 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 ...


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.