United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ABDUL H. FRAZIER, Plaintiff,
WILLIE BONDS, et al., Defendants.
H. Frazier, Plaintiff Pro Se 194759E/994898
B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Abdul Frazier'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
proceed in part.
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 Plaintiff's
a state prisoner formerly confined at South Woods State
Prison (“SWSP”), is partially paralyzed in his
lower extremities due to extensive nerve damage from gunshot
wounds. [Complaint ¶ 11]. An “I.V.C. filter”
and mesh device are implanted inside of Plaintiff.
[Id.]. Plaintiff uses a catheter and a wheelchair.
[Id. ¶ 12]. He states that he takes “an
elixir of medication to alleviate the excruciating pain that
he endures daily, in society.” [Id.]. He
alleges that his pain medication has been reduced to a level
that is not able to treat his pain. [Id. ¶ 13].
states that he submitted a sick-call slip on approximately
August 17, 2018 complaining of pain in his back.
[Id. ¶ 14]. He was examined by a registered
nurse on August 21, 2018 who told him that he would be placed
on a list to see a doctor. [Id. ¶ 15].
Plaintiff was never examined by a doctor, but five dollars
was deducted from his inmate account as a co-payment anyway.
[Id.]. Plaintiff submitted a grievance about the
charge when he was never examined by a physician.
[Id. ¶ 16]. SWSP refunded the five dollars.
[Id. ¶ 17]. Plaintiff still did not receive an
examination from a doctor for his back pain. [Id.].
August 31, 2018, the Special Investigation Division
(“SID”) searched Plaintiff's wheelchair and
found 15 pills inside the frame. [Id. ¶ 18].
Plaintiff asserts that other inmates have access to this
wheelchair and the pills are not his prescribed medication.
[Id. ¶ 19]. He was charged with misuse of
medication and taken off his pain medication and placed on
Motrin. [Id. ¶ 20]. Plaintiff submitted a
sick-call slip on September 5, 2018 complaining of pain in
his legs, back, and neck and stating that the Motrin was not
helping. [Id. ¶ 21]. Plaintiff saw a registered
nurse on September 7, 2018 and was told he would be seen by a
doctor within a week, but he never did. [Id. ¶
22]. He submitted a second sick-call slip on September 15,
2018. [Id. ¶ 23]. He also filed a grievance
about not being seen by a doctor. [Id.].
Ripley saw Plaintiff on September 17, 2018. [Id.
¶ 24]. She increased his Motrin dosage from 400 mgs
twice a day to 400 mgs three times a day but told Plaintiff
he would ultimately “have to ‘deal with the
pain.'” [Id. ¶ 25]. Plaintiff filed
another sick-call slip on September 29, 2018 due to
excruciating pain. [Id. ¶ 23]. Anthony Thomas,
the SWSP Ombudsman Advocate, told Plaintiff that Plaintiff
was scheduled to be taken to medical to address his concerns.
[Id. ¶ 24]. Plaintiff states that he has not
had medical attention for his pain in spite of filing
multiple requests. [Id. ¶ 27].
raises claims of cruel and unusual punishment, denial of due
process, and violations of Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132
et seq. He seeks damages and injunctive relief in the form of
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)