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.

Muslim v. Rizvi

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

May 9, 2018

SEYFULDEEN AKDIL MUSLIM, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. SYED RIZVI, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION

          Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

         Plaintiff Sayfuldeen Akdil Muslim, (“Plaintiff”), a pre-trial detainee confined at Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey at the time of filing, brings this action in forma pauperis. Based on his affidavit of indigence, the Court previously granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and ordered the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint. (D.E. No. 2).

         At this time, the Court must review the Complaint (D.E. No. 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, 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. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff brings this civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Dr. Syed Rizvi, Nurse April Lawrence, Nurse Shelly Benetez and the Center for Family Guidance.

         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 veracity of Plaintiff's allegations.

         Plaintiff suffers from several health issues, including: brain hematoma, substance abuse, withdrawal alcohol abuse, major depressive disorder, chronic opioid dependence, stroke, adjustment disorder and Hepatitis-C. (D.E. No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”) 6). When he entered the jail, he requested that he start treatment for his Hepatitis, but to date that has not yet begun. (Id.).

         Plaintiff states that on at least two occasions, Nurse Lawrence has “gone off shift” without checking to see if Plaintiff was okay or if his “I.V. had stopped.” (Id. at 7). As a result, the I.V. became backed up with blood. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Nurse Benetez “exhibits a sense of concern for her patients, [but] it can be a bit over-whelming at times.” (Id. at 8). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rizvi has sought and received medical advice from two hospitals for Plaintiff, but has yet to implement the treatment plan. (Id. at 10). Plaintiff alleges that on May 18, 2017, he was “called out” to court and left his wheelchair in his cell, but upon returning from court, it was gone and none of the staff knew anything about it. (Id. at 12). Plaintiff also alleges that his “PICC line” has previously cut into his skin and on another occasion, it “needed to be flushed.” (Id. at 16). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the “overseeing parent company, ” Center for Family Guidance, should be monitored and sanctioned for the ill treatment of the patients at the jail. (Id.).

         Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and that this Court “monitor this facility to ensure a safe and healthy treatment to all.” (Id.).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         1. Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal

         Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts to 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) and 1915A because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding as indigent.

         According to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “a pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a claim[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.” Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc., 708 F.3d 470, 483 n.17 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Moreover, while pro se ...


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.