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.

Williams v. Camden County Correctional Facility

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 30, 2018

JAMES D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; ERIC TAYLOR, FORMER WARDEN; FRANK LOBERTO, FORMER DEPUTY WARDEN; JOSEPH RIBA, CAMDEN COUNTY CLERK; DAVID OWENS, WARDEN; and KATE TAYLOR, WARDEN, Defendants.

          James D. Williams, Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         1. Plaintiff James D. Williams (“Plaintiff”) seeks to bring a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Plaintiff has filed suit against: Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”); Eric Taylor (“E. Taylor”) as Former Warden at CCCF; Frank Loberto (“Loberto”) as Former Deputy Warden at CCCF; Joseph Riba (“Riba”) as Camden County Clerk; David Owens (“Owens”) as Warden at CCCF; and Kate Taylor (“K. Taylor”) as Warden at CCCF (E. Taylor, Loberto, Riba, Owens, and K. Taylor are referred to collectively as “the Individual Defendants”). (ECF No. 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.

         3. For the reasons set forth below, the Complaint: (a) is dismissed with prejudice as to CCCF; (b) is dismissed with prejudice as to claims of overcrowding that arose during CCCF incarcerations from which Plaintiff was released before April 21, 2015; (c) shall proceed against the Individual Defendants as to claims of overcrowding that arose during CCCF incarcerations from which Plaintiff was released on or after April 21, 2015;(d) is dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff's claims of uncleanly conditions of confinement regarding scabies and a lesion; and (e) is dismissed without prejudice as to Plaintiff's claim of uncleanly conditions of confinement regarding change of eye color and loss of vision.

         II. BACKGROUND

         4. The following factual allegations are taken from the Complaint and are accepted for purposes of this screening only.

         The Court makes no findings as to the truth of Plaintiff's allegations.

         5. Plaintiff alleges he endured unconstitutional conditions of confinement in CCCF from overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions. (ECF No. 1 at 4-5.)

         6. Plaintiff alleges that these events occurred “in the years 2005 & 2006, ” “in the years 2010 [and] 2011, ” and 2016. (Id. at 4, 5.)

         7. Plaintiff contends that he sustained various injuries in connection with the alleged events, including scabies infection, hernia tear, “cervical vertebrae misalignment, ” “near constant sharp shooting pain down my neck and into my left arm & my left shoulder, ” and vision impairment. (Id.)

         8. As to requested relief, Plaintiff seeks “a sound judgment to rectify this situation as soon as possible and to resolve peacefully monetary values concerning my life an[d] health.” (Id. at 5.)

         III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

         A. Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal

         9. Section 1915(e)(2) requires review of complaints prior to service in cases in which 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. ยง 1915(e)(2)(B) ...


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.