ALWAN v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 2/28/2017. (dmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BILAL I. ALWAN,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action
No. 16-cv-07438 (JBS-AMD)

CAMDEN COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

OPINION

Defendant.
APPEARANCES
Bilal I. Alwan, Plaintiff Pro Se
3 6th Ave.
Chesilhurst, NJ 08089
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
Case 1
1.

By Complaint dated October 17, 2016 in Case No. 1:16-

cv-07340, Plaintiff Bilal I. Alwan sought to bring a civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden County
Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) for allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. Complaint in Case 1:16-cv-07340
(“Case 1”), Docket Entry 1.
2.

With respect to the alleged facts giving rise to

Plaintiff’s claims, the Complaint in Case 1 stated: “I was
forced to sleep on the floor with overcrowded conditions with
four inmates [in] very, very close quarters; we were packed like
sardines. The walls and floors are extremely dirty.” Complaint §
III(C). Complaint § III(C) in Case 1.
1

3.

The Complaint states that these events caused

Plaintiff to experience “bad colds and a toe infection.” Id. §
IV.
4.

In Case 1, Plaintiff sought $10,000 in relief.

Complaint § V in Case 1.
5.

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. Case 1 was
subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff was proceeding in forma
pauperis.
6.

In accordance with these directives of the PLRA, this

Court undertook the requisite screening in Case 1 and, by Order
dated February 21, 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”) in Case 1.
7.

As explained in this Court’s February 21, 2017 Opinion

accompanying the Dismissal Order, Plaintiff’s Complaint in Case
1 did not allege sufficient facts to support a reasonable
inference that a constitutional violation had occurred in order

2

to survive this Court’s review under § 1915. Docket Entry 4
(“Dismissal Opinion”) in Case 1.
8.

Even accepting the statements in Plaintiff’s Complaint

in Case 1 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.
Case 2
9.

By Complaint dated October 19, 2016 in Case No. 1:16-

cv-07438, Plaintiff sought to bring another civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the CCCF for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint
in Case 1:16-cv-07438 (“Case 2”), Docket Entry 1.
10.

With respect to the alleged facts giving rise to

Plaintiff’s claims (and similar to the Complaint in Case 1), the
Complaint in Case 2 states: “I was forced to sleep on the floor
with overcrowded conditions with four inmates, very very close
quarters; we were packed like sardines; the walls and floors are
extremely dirty. In the cafeteria I witnesses mice and roaches
run across the serving trays; also in the cell is mice and
roaches.” Complaint § III(C) in Case 2.
11.

Similar to Case 1, Plaintiff alleges in Case 2 that he

was forced to sleep in “very, very close quarters; we were
packed like sardines.” Complaint § IV in Case 2.
3

12.

As in Case 1, Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in relief.

Complaint § V in Case 2.
13.

Plaintiff’s Complaint in Case 2 is thus duplicative of

Plaintiff’s Complaint in Case 1.
14.

“‘As part of its general power to administer its

docket,’ a district court may dismiss a duplicative complaint.
Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)
(prohibiting a plaintiff from ‘maintaining two separate actions
involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same
court and against the same defendant’) . . . [T]he court must
insure that the plaintiff does not use the incorrect procedure
of filing duplicative complaints for the purpose of
circumventing the rules pertaining to amendment of complaints,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.” Fabics v. City of New Brunswick, 629 F.
App’x 196, 198 (3d Cir. 2015).
15.

Therefore, for the reason that Case 2 (No. 16-cv-

07438) is duplicative of Case 1 (No. 16-cv-07340), as well as
for all of the reasons set forth in this Court’s Order and
Opinion dated February 21, 2017 in Case 1, the Complaint in Case
2 is: (a) dismissed with prejudice as to the CCCF; and (b)
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

4

16.

An appropriate order follows.

February 28, 2017
Date

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

5