PRITCHETT v. OWENS

Filing 5

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/8/17. (jbk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TODD RANDOLPH PRITCHETT,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-cv-08551 (JBS-AMD)

v.
WARDEN DAVID OWENS,

OPINION
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
Todd Randolph Pritchett, Plaintiff Pro Se
#4323771
Camden County Correctional Facility
PO Box 90431
Camden, New Jersey 08102
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Todd Randolph Pritchett, a prisoner confined at
Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), seeks to bring a
civil rights complaint pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the CCCF warden, David Owens. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
At this time, the Court must review the complaint, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
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).
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff seeks relief for allegedly unconstitutional

conditions of confinement during his detention in the CCCF. He
states he has been detained in CCCF since August 15, 2016 and
slept on the floor until just before filing the complaint in
November 2016. Complaint ¶ 6. The sleeping arrangements
allegedly caused back soreness. Id. Plaintiff asserts he also
has been sick and has been to medical more “2 or three times for
being ill!” Id.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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)
and 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e because Plaintiff is a prisoner
proceeding in forma pauperis and is filing a claim about the
conditions of his confinement.
To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a
claim, the complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to
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)).
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff raises claims of unconstitutional conditions of
confinement. Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true
for purposes of screening only, the fact that Plaintiff slept on
the floor for roughly three months does not in and of itself
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See
Hubbard v. Taylor, 538 F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting that
requiring pretrial detainees to sleep on a mattress on the floor
of cells for a period of three to seven months did not violate
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights). “[T]he Constitution
does not mandate comfortable prisons[.]” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452
U.S. 337, 349 (1981). The Due Process Clause is only violated
when the totality of the conditions “cause[s] inmates to endure
3

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.” Id. (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). The present complaint does not allege
sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the
conditions at CCCF were punitive in nature. As Plaintiff may be
able to allege facts that would support a due process claim,
however, he shall be given leave to amend his complaint.
In the event Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he
must also allege facts indicating Warden Owens had personal
involvement in the conditions of confinement. “A defendant in a
civil rights action must have personal involvement in the
alleged wrongs; liability cannot be predicated solely on the
operation of respondeat superior.” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845
F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988)). “Personal involvement can be
shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual
knowledge and acquiescence. Allegations of participation or
actual knowledge and acquiescence, however, must be made with
appropriate particularity.” Id. Plaintiff must plead specific
facts regarding Warden Owens’ responsibility for the conditions
Plaintiff endured.
As Plaintiff may be able to amend the Complaint to address
the deficiencies noted by the Court, the Court shall grant
Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint within 30 days of the
4

date of this order.1 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.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed with

prejudice for failure to state a claim. An appropriate order
follows.

March 8, 2017
Date

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

1

The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
5