United States District Court, D. New Jersey
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.
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
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
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
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.).
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.).
is seeking monetary damages and that this Court
“monitor this facility to ensure a safe and healthy
treatment to all.” (Id.).
Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal
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.
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, 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 ...