United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. Kugler United States District Judge.
Nilsa Vazquez, is proceeding pro se with a civil
rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the
reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court will dismiss with
prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the Camden County
Jail but provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an
Court will construe the factual allegations of the Complaint
as true for the purpose of this Opinion. Plaintiff names only
the Camden County Jail as a Defendant in this matter.
great liberality, the Court gleans from Complaint that
Plaintiff takes issue with the strip searches and living
conditions at the jail. In particular, she alleges that the
jail housed four to five women in a cell with only two
bunkbeds, forced her to sleep on the floor, and that the
cells were unsanitary. Plaintiff encountered these conditions
on seven different dates of incarceration from 1996 to 2008.
decade later, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint, which
briefly lists her grievances, but does not explicitly seek
STANDARD OF REVIEW
courts must review complaints in civil actions in which a
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). District courts may 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 Id. 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)).
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. See Fowler v. UPMC
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 [alleged]
misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Moreover,
while courts liberally construe pro se pleadings,
“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).
addition to these pleading rules, however, a complaint must
satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which states
that a complaint must contain:
(a) A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain[:]
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for
the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.
a pro se plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint must
recite factual allegations which are sufficient to raise the
plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of
mere speculation, set forth in a ‘short and plain'
statement of a cause of action.” Johnson v.
Koehler, No. 18-00807, 2019 WL 1231679, at *3 (M.D. Pa.
Mar. 15, 2019). Stated differently, Rule 8 requires a showing
that the plaintiff is entitled to relief in order to
“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id.
(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of her civil rights guaranteed under the United
States Constitution, and related claims. To succeed on a
§ 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege two things: first,
a violation of a right under the Constitution, and second,
that a “person” acting under color of state law
committed the ...