KAMARA v. ADMINISTRATOR

Filing 6

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 2/21/2018. (tf, n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MAMADEE KAMARA,

No. 17-cv-7383 (NLH) (AMD)

Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION

ADMINISTRATOR, BAYSIDE STATE
PRISON,
Defendant.

APPEARANCE:
Mamadee Kamara, #549170E
Bayside State Prison
4293 Route 47
Leesburg, NJ 08327
Plaintiff Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff Mamadee Kamara, a prisoner presently incarcerated
at Bayside State Prison in Leesburg, New Jersey, seeks to bring
an Eighth Amendment claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against
the Administrator of Bayside State Prison.
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, with
leave to amend.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
1

BACKGROUND
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the conditions in
his cell at Bayside State Prison are cruel and inhumane in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.

ECF No. 1.

Specifically,

Plaintiff states that his cell has no “fire combatant, such as
but not limited to, sprinklers” nor does his cell have
sufficient ventilation from the heat.

ECF No. 1, Compl. at 5.

The Plaintiff seeks compensation for the emotional and
psychological damages he has incurred from the violation of his
rights.

Id. at 6.

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) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
See ECF No. 5 (granting in forma pauperis application).
To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a
claim, the complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to
show that the claim is facially plausible.
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009).

Fowler v. UPMC

2

“‘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)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

“[A]

pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
DISCUSSION
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the conditions of
his cell constitute cruel and unusual punishment because his
cell lacks fire combatants and adequate ventilation from the
heat.

To assert a claim for cruel and unusual punishment

regarding the conditions of confinement under the Eighth
Amendment, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the conditions are
“objectively, sufficiently serious” such that a “prison
official’s act or omission . . . result[s] in the denial of the
minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities;” and (2) the
official responsible for the conditions must exhibit a
“sufficiently culpable state of mind” akin to “deliberate
indifference to inmate health or safety.”
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

3

Farmer v. Brennan,

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege that the conditions of his
cell are so sufficiently serious so as to result in the denial
of a civilized life’s necessities.

An allegation that a prison

cell lacks fire sprinklers or other fire precautions without
more does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

See Wilson v.

Brown, 261 F. App’x 442, 443 (3d Cir. 2008); Mays v. Untig, No.
08–CV–3379, 2010 WL 398901 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2010).

The same can

be said for an allegation regarding ventilation and
uncomfortable heat in a prison cell without more, which does not
state an Eighth Amendment claim.
581 (5th Cir. 1995).

Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577,

Plaintiff fails to include any allegations

regarding the frequency and duration of the alleged poor
ventilation or how it has adversely affected him.

See, e.g.,

Dippolito v. United States, No. 13-cv-175, 2016 WL 4161092, at
*3 (D.N.J. Aug. 5, 2016) (noting plaintiff’s allegations
regarding frequency and duration of poor ventilation as well as
its adverse effect on Plaintiff).
Further, Plaintiff fails to allege the requisite state of
mind.

To do so, Plaintiff would need to allege that he notified

the Defendant of the serious conditions of his cell and that
Defendant then acted in a manner deliberately indifferent to the
serious conditions.

See Jones v. Cty. Jail C.F.C.F., 610 F.

App’x 167, 169 (3d Cir. 2015).

Here, Plaintiff states he has

not notified prison officials as to the conditions of his cell.
4

See ECF No. 1, Compl. at 5.

Given Plaintiff’s pleading

deficiencies, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted as to the Eighth Amendment.
Generally, “plaintiffs who file complaints subject to
dismissal under [§ 1915] should receive leave to amend unless
amendment would be inequitable or futile.”

Grayson v. Mayview

State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).

The Court will

grant leave to amend in order to allow Plaintiff an opportunity
to cure his pleading deficiencies as described supra.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint will be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, with
leave to amend within 30 days of this Opinion and accompanying
Order.

An appropriate order follows.

Dated: February 21, 2018
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

5