LAMBERT v. NO DEFENDANT LISTED

Filing 3

OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 5/4/17. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

VICKIE YVONNIE LAMBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil Action
No. 16-cv-06805(JBS-AMD)

NO DEFENDANT LISTED,

OPINION

Defendant.
APPEARANCES
Vickie Yvonnie Lambert
Plaintiff Pro Se
2031 West Minster Avenue
Camden, NJ 08104
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.

Plaintiff Vickie Yvonnie Lambert seeks to bring a

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint,
Docket Entry 1. Although Plaintiff does not name a defendant in
the caption or in § I(B) of her Complaint, this Court will
construe Plaintiff’s allegations as asserting claims against
Camden County Jail (“CCJ”), based on Plaintiff’s statement in §
III(A) of her Complaint that the events giving rise to her
claims occurred in the “Camden County Jail.”
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 Section
1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
3.

First, the Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice

as to claims made against the CCJ because defendant is not a
“state actor” within the meaning of § 1983. 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));
Grabow v. Southern State Corr. Facility, 726 F. Supp. 537, 538–
39 (D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility is not a “person” under
§ 1983).
4.

Second, 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).
5.

The present Complaint does not allege sufficient facts

to support a reasonable inference that a constitutional
violation has occurred in order to survive this Court’s review
under § 1915. Even accepting the statements in Plaintiff’s
Complaint as true for screening purposes only, there is not
enough factual support for the Court to infer a constitutional
violation has occurred.
2

6.

To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a

claim1, 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)). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally
construed, pro se plaintiffs “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).

1

“The 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).” Samuels v. Health Dep’t, No. 161289, 2017 WL 26884, slip op. at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2017)
(citing Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir.
2012)); Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000));
Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F. App’x 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2012)
(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)); Courteau v. United States,
287 F. App’x 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)).
3

7.

With respect to the alleged facts giving rise to her

claims in the Complaint, Plaintiff states: “In 7 day lock up I
was put in a room (small) with 3 other women and was on the
floor. My head was by the toilet and I was in there with people
who were very aggravated loud [sic] and was [sic] detoxing from
all kinds of drugs and medication. They was [sic] pooping and
throwing up every 30 mins, we ran out of toilet paper and there
was none to give us from the correction officer. It was very
cold and we only recieved [sic] 1 toilet and had limited time to
shower and make phone calls. We asked for a new towel or toilet
paper or pads[.] [T]here was [sic] never any to give[.] I was
told they was [sic] out by every correctional officer that came
on shift. Also my time in the maze [sic] there was a dead
rat/mouse in the closet. [I]n maze(y) [sic] and I had to endure
the smell of it from the 3rd til [sic] the 15th of September
because the correctional officers did not want to report it.
[A]long with all the other ladies that were there every person
that was in 7 day lock up when I was there. But I do not recall
any of there [sic] names and the ladies inmaze(y) [sic].”
Complaint § III(C).
8.

Plaintiff contends that “[d]ue to not changing towels

and limited time in showers I had to go to the nurse there
because I had got [sic] a rash on my right thigh that the drs
gave me antiobitic [sic] cream for and my feet itched alot [sic]
4

while stepping in and out of the shower due to no water shoes or
anything on the floor surface of taking a shower.” Id. § IV.
9.

Plaintiff states that the purported events giving rise

to her claims occurred in the Camden County Jail (id. § III(A))
during “August 29th 2016 till Sept 3rd of 2016 for me for 7 day
lockup[,] then the maze [sic] Sept 3rd till [sic] Sept 15th.” Id.
§ III(B).
10.

Plaintiff seeks “whatever legal amount I am suppose

[sic] to recieve [sic] for the treatment I endured during my
time at the Camden County Correctional Facility from August 29th
till [sic] Sept 15th 2016 or open for discussion.” Id. § V.
11.

Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because the

Complaint does not set forth enough factual support for the
Court to infer that a constitutional violation has occurred.
12.

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
(1979))). More is needed to demonstrate that such crowded
5

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 length of the
confinement(s), whether plaintiff was a pretrial detainee or
convicted prisoner, any specific individuals who were involved
in creating or failing to remedy the conditions of confinement,
any other relevant facts regarding the conditions of
confinement, etc.
13.

Plaintiff may be able to amend the Complaint to

particularly identify adverse conditions that were caused by
specific state actors, that caused Plaintiff to endure genuine
privations and hardship over an extended period of time, and
that were excessive in relation to their purposes. To that end,
the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint
within 30 days of the date of this order.2
14.

Plaintiff is further advised that any amended

complaint must plead specific facts regarding the conditions of

2

The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
6

confinement. In the event Plaintiff files an amended complaint,
Plaintiff 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.
15.

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
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.
16.

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is: (a)

dismissed with prejudice as to the CCJ; and (b) dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
17.

An appropriate order follows.

May 4, 2017
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
7