United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Charles Talbert Plaintiff Pro Se
Timothy J. Galanaugh, Esq. Camden City Attorney Office
Counsel for Moving Defendant City of Camden
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Charles Talbert filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against, inter alia, Moving Defendant
the City of Camden for maltreatment he received at the Camden
County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) where he
was previously housed as a pre-trial detainee. ECF No. 3.
Presently before the Court is the Moving Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, which is ripe for adjudication. ECF No.
21. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the Motion. For the
reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion and
dismiss the Moving Defendant City of Camden as a party.
City of Camden is included as one of thirteen entities and
individuals named by Plaintiff as defendants in the
Complaint. See ECF No. 3. The Complaint provides
that the “City of Camden (the City) is a municipality,
which operates the CCCF.” Id., ¶ 3. There
are no allegations against the Moving Defendant, the City of
Camden, other than the allegation that it is the municipality
that operates the Camden County Correctional Facility
(“CCCF”), where the alleged maltreatment of
Plaintiff occurred. See id. at 4, 14, 17, 18, 21.
No. other factual allegation against the City of Camden is
contained in the Complaint. See generally ECF No. 3.
City of Camden has filed a Motion to Dismiss itself as a
party because it does not, in fact, operate the Camden County
Correctional Facility, and without that fact to tie the City
to the County Correctional Facility, Plaintiff cannot state a
claim against it. See ECF No. 24-2. In support of
that argument, the City of Camden provides a certification
from the business administrator for the City of Camden, in
which the administrator certifies that the City of Camden
does not have and has not had any legal or other
responsibility regarding the operation of the Camden County
Correctional Facility, which, the administrator certifies is
a county, and not a city, entity. See ECF No. 24-5.
In addition to the certification, the City of Camden requests
that the Court take judicial notice of the fact that the
Camden County Correctional Facility is a county facility,
staffed by county employees, and that the City of Camden is
unrelated to the Facility other than its physical location
within the City. ECF No. 24-2 at 1-2. Plaintiff has not
opposed the motion or filed any response.
Standard of Review
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), the defendant bears the burden of showing that no
claim has been presented. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that a pleading must set forth a
claim for relief which contains a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;
the complaint must provide the defendant with fair notice of
the claim. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). The issue in a motion to dismiss is whether
the plaintiff should be entitled to offer evidence to support
the claim, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail.
See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,
232 (3d Cir. 2008) (the Rule 8 pleading standard
“‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence
of' the necessary element.”); Nami v.
Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996).
onus is on the plaintiff to provide a well-drafted complaint
that alleges factual support for its claims. “While a
complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does
not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (alteration in original and internal citations
omitted). The court need not accept unsupported inferences,
Cal. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp.,
394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004), nor legal conclusions cast
as factual allegations, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
Legal conclusions without factual support are not entitled to
the assumption of truth. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not” satisfy the requirements of Rule
the court winnows the conclusory allegations from those
allegations supported by fact, which it accepts as true, the
court must engage in a common sense review of the claim to
determine whether it is plausible. This is a context-specific
task, for which the court should be guided by its judicial
experience. The court must dismiss the complaint if it fails
to allege enough facts “to state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A
“claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw a
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The complaint that shows that the pleader is entitled to
relief--or put another way, facially plausible--will survive
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2);
Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir.
City of Camden requests that the Court take judicial notice
of the fact that it does not and has not operated the Camden
County Correctional Facility, without which allegation,
Plaintiff cannot state a claim against it.
Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial
notice of any adjudicative fact that is generally known
within the court's territorial jurisdiction or capable of
accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be disputed. Fed.R.Evid. 201(b).
“A court must take judicial notice if requested by a
party and supplied with the necessary information.”
Fed.R.Evid. 201(c)(2). Judicial notice is appropriate when
deciding a motion to dismiss because “[j]udicial notice
may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.”
Fed.R.Evid. 201(f). See also O'Boyle v.
Braverman, 337 Fed.Appx. 162, 164 n.2 (3d Cir. 2009)
(“Although the general rule is that a district court
may not look outside the complaint and the documents attached
thereto in ruling on a Rule 12(b) motion ...