PHILLIPS v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/23/2016. (tf, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NATHAN PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil Action
No. 16-cv-06051(JBS-AMD)
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,
OPINION
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
Nathan Phillips, Plaintiff Pro Se
1518 South 7th Street Avent Garden Apartments
Camden, NJ 08103
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.
Plaintiff Nathan Phillips seeks to bring a civil
rights complaint pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”). Complaint, Docket
Entry 1. Based on Plaintiff’s affidavit of indigency, the Court
will grant his in forma pauperis application.
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.
3.
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) (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.’”
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 CCCF for an
allegedly illegal search. As the CCCF is not a “state actor”
within the meaning of § 1983, the claims against it must be
dismissed with prejudice. See, e.g., Grabow v. Southern State
Corr. Facility, 726 F. Supp. 537, 538–39 (D.N.J. 1989)
(correctional facility is not a “person” under § 1983).
2
6.
Plaintiff may be able to amend the complaint to name
state actors who were personally involved in the alleged illegal
search, however. To that end, the Court shall grant Plaintiff
leave to amend the complaint within 30 days of the date of this
order.1
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 factual portion of the
complaint states in its entirety: “Illegal search.” Complaint §
III. Even accepting the statement as true for screening purposes
only, there is not enough factual support for the Court to infer
a constitutional violation has occurred, such as what was
searched or any circumstances of the search.
8.
In the event Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he
should include specific facts, such as the dates and length of
his confinement(s), what kind of search occurred, where it
occurred, any specific individuals who were involved in the
search, and any other relevant facts.
9.
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
1
The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
3
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
explicit. Id. To avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an
amended complaint that is complete in itself. Id. The amended
complaint may not adopt or repeat claims that have been
dismissed with prejudice by the Court.
10.
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.
11.
An appropriate order follows.
November 23, 2016
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?