ANDERSON v. CAMDEN COUNTY

Filing 6

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/2/2017. (dmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KEENAN ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil Action
No. 16-cv-06867 (JBS-AMD)
OPINION

Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
Keenan Anderson, Plaintiff Pro Se
777 Mt. Vernon Street
Camden, NJ 08103
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.

By Complaint dated October 11, 2016, Plaintiff Keenan

Anderson sought to bring a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden County for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 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.
3.

In accordance with these directives of the PLRA, this

Court undertook the requisite screening and, by Order dated
January 16, 2017, dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice for failure to state a claim (28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b)(ii)). Docket Entry 4 (“Dismissal Order”).
4.

As explained in this Court’s January 16, 2017 Opinion

accompanying the Dismissal Order, Plaintiff’s Complaint did not
allege sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that a
constitutional violation had occurred in order to survive this
Court’s review under § 1915. Docket Entry 3 (“Dismissal
Opinion”).
5.

Even accepting the statements in § III of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as true for screening purposes only, there was not
enough factual support for the Court to infer that a
constitutional violation had occurred in connection with
Plaintiff’s incarceration.
6.

This Court’s January 16 dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Complaint was without prejudice, thereby granting Plaintiff
leave to amend the Complaint to plead sufficient facts to
support a reasonable inference that a constitutional violation
occurred during his confinement, such as: adverse conditions
that were caused by specific state actors; adverse conditions
2

that caused Plaintiff to endure genuine privations and hardship
over an extended period of time; or adverse conditions that were
excessive in relation to their purposes. To that end, the Court
granted Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint within 30 days of
the date of the Dismissal Order.1
7.

On January 25, 2017, Plaintiff submitted five pages of

exhibits to this Court. Docket Entry 5 (“Plaintiff’s Exhibits”).
8.

These submissions purport to reflect medical records

in connection with his incarceration at issue in this case.
9.

Specifically, Plaintiff’s Exhibits include: (a) an

August 28, 2014 Sick Call Slip in which Plaintiff complains “my
back is bothering me, my lower back been killing me lately from
sleeping on floor”; (b) an undated Medical Service Charge
receipt from Camden County Correctional Facility, for a “sick
call”; (c) a May 24, 2014 Camden County Correctional Facility
Intake and Diagnostic Unit Sick Call Slip on which Plaintiff
reported “my back is bothering me”; and (d) an October 12, 2014
Sick Call Slip on which Plaintiff reported “I have a very nasty
cold that[’s] getting bader [sic].” Docket Entry 5.
10.

Construing Plaintiff’s Exhibits as an attempt to amend

the original Complaint, they are insufficient to constitute an
amended complaint.

1

The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
3

11.

First, Plaintiff’s Exhibits do not satisfy the

pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which requires pleadings to contain “a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . .
.

a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief; and demand for the relief sought
. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3).
12.

Second, since Plaintiff’s Exhibits do not clearly

adopt the allegations in the original Complaint, the original
Complaint does not cure the pleading defects in Plaintiff’s
Exhibits. As explained in this Court’s January 16 Dismissal
Opinion, 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 an 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. Thus,
the safer course would have been for Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint that was complete in itself. Id. An amended
complaint may not adopt or repeat claims that have been
dismissed with prejudice by the Court. In short, even
4

considering Plaintiff’s Exhibits together with the original
Complaint, he has still failed to plead specific facts regarding
the conditions of his confinement.
13.

Therefore, even liberally construing the Complaint and

Plaintiff’s Exhibits as this Court is required to do, Mala v.
Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013),
Plaintiff has still failed to plead sufficient facts to support
a reasonable inference that a constitutional violation occurred
during his incarceration in order to survive this Court’s review
under § 1915.
14.

In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will

grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to submit a complaint that
meets the pleading standards. If Plaintiff is unable to allege
facts sufficient to survive § 1915 review in his second amended
complaint, the Court may conclude that permitting further
amendment would be futile and dismiss the complaint with
prejudice. See Hoffenberg v. Bumb, 446 F. App'x 394, 399 (3d
Cir. 2011); Rhett v. N.J. State Superior Court, 260 F. App'x
513, 516 (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal with prejudice
after District Court gave pro se plaintiff several opportunities
to comply with Rule 8). For these reasons as well as those
stated above, the original Complaint remains dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim, and Plaintiff is granted

5

one final leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of
the date of this Opinion and Order.
15.

Any amended complaint is subject to screening prior to

service, and it must plead specific facts regarding the
conditions of confinement sufficient to support a reasonable
inference that a constitutional violation has occurred in order
to survive this Court’s review under § 1915.
16.

An appropriate order follows.

March 2, 2017
Date

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

6