United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER United States District Judge
Rodney Walker, is a state prisoner. He is proceeding pro
se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Previously, this Court granted
plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
Court must screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A to determine whether the
complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or whether it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. For
the following reasons, plaintiff's federal claims will be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and this Court will decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state
law claims. Additionally, plaintiff's motion for the
appointment of pro bono counsel will be denied.
allegations of the complaint must be construed as true for
purposes of this screening opinion. The complaint names the
following defendants: (1) Rutgers Biomedical Health Sciences;
and (2) South Woods Min. Unit Medical Department; and (3)
Jennifer Farestad; and Jane Doe.
alleges that in November, 2017, he was incarcerated at South
Woods State Prison (“SWSP”). He submitted a
medical slip at that time because he was not feeling well. He
was called-in two days later. A nurse asked plaintiff some
questions and checked his sugar. Thereafter, she sent
plaintiff to a hospital emergency room. Plaintiff was placed
in I.C.U. A doctor told plaintiff he was lucky he had put in
a medical slip because he could have died or gone into a
diabetic coma if he had not.
states the entire reason these events occurred was because of
the negligence of the medical department at
(“SWSP”), and specifically Jennifer Farestad and
Jane Doe. According to plaintiff, he was not seen for chronic
care visits for nine months. This caused him to develop
plaintiff was returned to SWSP, he was placed into emergency
care for two weeks. He had to take five shots a day.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. 104-134,
§§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (Apr. 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. see 28 U.S.C. §
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane
v. Seana, 506 Fed.Appx. 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing
Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir.
2000)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 Fed.Appx. 230, 232
(3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1));
Courteau v. United States, 287 Fed.Appx. 159, 162
(3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). That
standard is set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007), as explicated by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. To survive the court's
screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must
allege ‘sufficient factual matter' to show that the
claim is facially plausible. See Fowler v. UPMC
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). “[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 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
se pleadings, as always, will be liberally construed.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
Nevertheless, “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).
plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for certain violations of constitutional rights. ...