United States District Court, D. New Jersey
THOMAS M. DONOHUE, Plaintiff,
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DAVID OWENS, WARDEN; and KATE TAYLOR, WARDEN, Defendants.
M. Donohue, Plaintiff Pro Se
JEROME B. SIMANDLE, District Judge
Plaintiff Thomas M. Donohue (“Plaintiff”) seeks
to bring a civil rights action against Camden County
Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), David Owens
(“Owens”) as Warden at CCCF, and Kate Taylor
(“Taylor”) as Warden at CCCF (Owens and Taylor
referred to collectively as “the Individual
Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (ECF
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.
the reasons set forth below, the Complaint: (a) is dismissed
with prejudice as to CCCF; (b) is dismissed with prejudice as
to Plaintiff's claims of overcrowding, uncleanly living
conditions, and inadequate medical care -- to the extent such
claims arose during incarcerations from which Plaintiff was
released from CCCF before April 21, 2015; (c) shall proceed
against the Individual Defendants as to Plaintiff's
claims of overcrowding, uncleanly living conditions, and
inadequate medical care -- to the extent such claims arose
during incarcerations from which Plaintiff was released from
CCCF on or after April 21, 2015; (d) is dismissed without
prejudice as to Plaintiff's claim of failure to protect;
and (e) is dismissed without prejudice as to Plaintiff's
claim of excessive use of force.
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
Plaintiff alleges he endured unconstitutional conditions of
confinement in CCCF from overcrowded conditions of
confinement, unsanitary living conditions, and inadequate
medical care. (ECF No. 1 at 5-7.) Plaintiff also asserts
claims for failure to protect and excessive use of force.
(Id. at 7.)
Plaintiff alleges that these events occurred “for more
th[a]n 1400 days since 12/22/2012.” (Id. at
Plaintiff contends that he sustained injuries such as
“lumbar disk problems and sciatica, ” depression,
a fungal infection of the scalp with associated hair loss,
and “7 MRSA lesions” in connection with the
alleged events. (Id. at 6-7.)
to requested relief, Plaintiff seeks: transfer to a detention
facility located in another state; “compensat[ion] at
the maximum levels for my damages sustained during my 1, 400
days of incarceration, ” and for this Court “to
hold all involved parties accountable to the highest
degree.” (Id. at 7-8.)
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal
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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
(ECF No. 2.)
survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a claim, a
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).
“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) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Section 1983 Actions
plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights.
That statute provides, in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ...
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress ....
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that the
alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person
acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins,4 ...