HOLMES v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Filing 3

OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 2/22/17. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

KEVIN MARK HOLMES,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action
No. 16-cv-07404 (JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

OPINION

Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
Kevin Mark Holmes, Plaintiff Pro Se
617 N. White Horse Pike, Apt. 16
Lindenwold, NJ 08021
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.

Plaintiff Kevin Mark Holmes seeks to bring a civil

rights complaint against Camden County Correctional Facility
(“CCCF”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket
Entry 1.
2.

28 U.S.C. 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

1

subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under Section
1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
3.

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

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).
4.

Plaintiff has named CCCF as the sole defendant in the

Complaint. However, the Complaint itself is blank with respect
to facts, dates, times, location, injury and requested relief in
connection with Plaintiff’s claims against CCCF. Id. §§ III-V.
As such, the Court cannot discern what cause of action Plaintiff
intends to pursue against CCCF. The Complaint must therefore be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
5.

To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a

claim1, the Complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to

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)).
2

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 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) (emphasis added).
6.

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges no facts

whatsoever in relation to a statement of claim against CCCF
(Complaint § III), purported injuries caused by CCCF (id. § IV),
or requested relief sought from CCCF (id. § V).
7.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed

because the Complaint does not set forth any factual support for
the Court to infer that a constitutional violation has occurred.
8.

Plaintiff may be able to amend the Complaint to

address the deficiencies noted by the Court. To that end, the
3

Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint within
30 days of the date of this order.2
9.

Plaintiff is further advised that any amended

complaint must plead specific facts regarding the alleged
violations. 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.
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
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.

2

The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
4

11.

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
12.

An appropriate order follows.

February 22, 2017
Date

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

5