United States District Court, D. New Jersey
WILLIAM D. HUYSERS, Plaintiff,
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
William D. Huysers, No. 1068454 Plaintiff Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
William D. Huysers, a prisoner presently confined at the
South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, seeks to
bring a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the
New Jersey Department of Corrections and the Southern State
Correctional Facility for conduct that occurred while
Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Southern State Correctional
Facility. See ECF No. 1.
time, the Court must review the Complaint, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 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 for failure to state a claim, with
leave to amend granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
lists as defendants in the caption of the Complaint the New
Jersey Department of Corrections and the Southern State
Correctional Facility. He alleges that these defendants
failed to ensure proper conduct of an employee in a
supervisory position who regularly inflicted force upon
inmates and led to the cruel and unusual punishment of
Plaintiff at the Southern State Correctional Facility. ECF
No. 1 at 4-5. According to Plaintiff, this employee, who
Plaintiff does not name, forced him to consume over eighty
ounces of an unidentified liquid, which made him vomit.
Id. at 6. Then, the employee made Plaintiff perform
jumping jacks, which exacerbated the vomiting. Id.
Plaintiff seeks financial compensation for the violation of
his civil rights or damages of $500, 000 from each defendant.
Id. He also requests that the Department of
Corrections develop a protocol for screening out officers
with high incident rates, so that such officers can be
assigned to positions away from the general inmate
1915A requires a court to review complaints prior to service
in cases in which an incarcerated plaintiff seeks redress
from a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). 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. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This action is subject to sua
sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A because Plaintiff is incarcerated and seeks redress
from governmental entities.
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). “‘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)). “[A] pleading that offers ‘labels or
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. In order to state a claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must show
that “‘(1) the conduct complained of was
committed by a person acting under color of state law; and
(2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States.'” Calhoun v. Young, 288
Fed.Appx. 47, 49 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Robb v. City of
Phila., 733 F.2d 286, 290-91 (3d Cir. 1984)).
the New Jersey Department of Corrections and the Southern
State Correctional Facility must be dismissed because they
are not “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (state agencies not
subject to suit under § 1983); Grabow v. S. State
Corr. Facility, 726 F.Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J. 1989)
(noting that state department of corrections and state prison
facilities are not “persons” under § 1983).
Plaintiff cannot seek relief pursuant to § 1983 against
“plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal
under [§ 1915] should receive leave to amend unless
amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Grayson
v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir.
2002). The Court will grant leave to amend in order to ...