United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Creaig, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Andre Creaig's
(“Plaintiff”), submission of a civil rights
complaint. Docket Entry 1. At this time, the Court must
review the complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 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 concludes that the complaint will be
dismissed without prejudice, with the exception of two claims
that shall be dismissed with prejudice.
brings this civil rights action against the Camden County
Police Department (“CCPD”) and Detective Angel
Camacho. 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 truth of
formerly a prisoner at South Woods State Prison, alleges that
CCPD and Detective Camacho “failed to charge
victim/purp [sic] during questioning for implicating
themselves first hand in criminal activity against myself the
accused” on February 12, 2017. Complaint ¶ 3(d).
He goes on to state that “officials underminded [sic]
the fact that during questioning the accuser to detectives
that they broke the window and gained entry to the home in
which I was residing not charging accusers of crimes
implicated by themselves in police report . . . .”
Id. ¶ 3(e). He later alleges Detective Camacho
“pursue[d] victim and witnesses['] bogus accounts
of aggravated Assault in the 3rd degree when based off of
alledged [sic] victim's statement of breaking and entry,
[burglary], and [vandalism] of breaking a window to a home
which was secure as well as inhabited by myself . . .
.” Declaration ¶ 5. He states the police did not
“question the alterior [sic] motives of alledged
[sic] victim an actual negligence of Justice has [occurred] .
. . .” Id. He included a portion of a
transcript where an unidentified person with the initials CF
was speaking with someone with the initials AC, presumably
Detective Angel Camacho. CF stated he and his girlfriend,
Diamond, “banged on the door; we banged on the door
like who in there? Like somebody in there locked the
door” and they “broke the window” so
Diamond could “climb through the window . . . to unlock
the door.” Complaint Exhibit A.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 because Plaintiff is a prisoner
proceeding in forma pauperis.
determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court
must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
93-94 (2007) (following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)); see also United States v. Day, 969
F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). 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,  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)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Moreover, while
pro se pleadings are liberally construed,
“pro se litigants still must allege sufficient
facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala
v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir.
2013) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Section 1983 Actions
plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights.
Section 1983 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