Source: http://limev.com/pdf-ebook-delaney-v-camden-county-department-of-corrections-county-jail.html
Timestamp: 2018-07-20 08:47:15
Document Index: 657066208

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915']

DELANEY v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COUNTY JAIL - PDF EBook Free Download
DELANEY v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COUNTY JAIL
Case 1:16-cv-06093-JBS-AMD Document 3 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY BROOKE DELANEY, Plai...
Case 1:16-cv-06093-JBS-AMD Document 3 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 14
BROOKE DELANEY, Plaintiff, v.
Civil Action No. 16-cv-06093 (JBS-AMD)
CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant. APPEARANCES: Brooke Delaney, Plaintiff Pro Se 1175 N. 35th Street, Floor 2 Camden, NJ 08105 SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge: 1.
Plaintiff Brooke Delaney seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden County Jail (“CCJ”). Complaint, Docket Entry 1. 2.
Section 1915(e)(2) requires a court to review
complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. 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. This action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
Case 1:16-cv-06093-JBS-AMD Document 3 Filed 03/08/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 15
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii). 4.
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). “[A] pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 5.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from CCJ for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. As the CCJ is not a “state actor” within the meaning of § 1983, the claims against it must be dismissed with prejudice. See Crawford v. McMillian, 660 F. App’x 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2016) (“[T]he prison is not an entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (citing Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)).
Case 1:16-cv-06093-JBS-AMD Document 3 Filed 03/08/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 16
Plaintiff may be able to amend the complaint to name
state actors who were personally involved in the alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement, however. To that end, the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. 7.
Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must
plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that a constitutional violation has occurred in order to survive this Court’s review under § 1915. The complaint states: “I was put in a room with 3-4 people. [T]here’s only 2 beds shouldn’t be 3-4 [people] in a room where people have to sleep on floor dirty floor [and] next to dirty toilet.” Complaint § III. Even accepting these statements as true for screening purposes only, there is not enough factual support for the Court to infer a constitutional violation has occurred. 8.
The mere fact that an individual is lodged temporarily
in a cell with more persons than its intended design does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348–50 (1981) (holding double-celling by itself did not violate Eighth Amendment); Carson v. Mulvihill, 488 F. App'x 554, 560 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[M]ere double-bunking does not constitute punishment, because there is no ‘one man, one cell principle lurking in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.’” (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 542 3
Case 1:16-cv-06093-JBS-AMD Document 3 Filed 03/08/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 17
(1979))). More is needed to demonstrate that such crowded conditions, for a pretrial detainee, shocks the conscience and thus violates due process rights. See Hubbard v. Taylor, 538 F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting due process analysis requires courts to consider whether the totality of the conditions “cause[s] inmates to endure such genuine privations and hardship over an extended period of time, that the adverse conditions become excessive in relation to the purposes assigned to them.”). Some relevant factors are the dates and length of the confinement(s), whether Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner, etc. 9.
As Plaintiff may be able to amend her complaint to
address the deficiencies noted by the Court, the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. 10.
Plaintiff should note that when an amended complaint
is filed, the original complaint no longer performs any function in the case and cannot be utilized to cure defects in the amended complaint, unless the relevant portion is specifically incorporated in the new complaint. 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (footnotes omitted). An amended complaint may adopt some or all of the allegations in the original complaint, but the identification of the particular allegations to be adopted must be clear and 4
Case 1:16-cv-06093-JBS-AMD Document 3 Filed 03/08/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 18
explicit. Id. To avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an amended complaint that is complete in itself.1 Id. 11.
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court will reopen the matter in the event Plaintiff files an amended complaint within the time allotted by the Court. 12.
March 8, 2017 Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle JEROME B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge
The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to service. 5
FRAZIER v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
ORTIZ v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
MADDOX v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
JOHNSON v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
STEED v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
NIX v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
PAGAN v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AKBARRAKHAN v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
PEREZ v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
SANCHEZ v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
GRANGER v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
CALLOWAY v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
CLEGG v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
SAMPLE v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
FOFANA v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
TORRES v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
MCCLAINE v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
PARRISH v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
SHARP v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
CUBBAGE v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL