United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Rivera, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
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
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.
Plaintiff alleges that these events occurred from “June
through July 2015 and August through September 2016.”
Id. § III(A).
Plaintiff states he has damages of “a lot of
inflammation, burning, and itching on my rectum” from
the alleged events. Id. § IV.
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. §
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 ...