Opinion
Civil Action 23-3315 (KMW) (SAK)
06-21-2023
SABRINA LINDSEY STRICKLAND, Plaintiff, v. SALEM COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION
Hon. Karen M. Williams, United States District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Court's sua sponte screening of Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1) and the Court's review of Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1 -3.) Having reviewed the application, this Court finds that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is warranted in this matter, and Plaintiffs application will be granted. Because Plaintiff will be granted in forma pauperis status in this matter, this Court is required to screen her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any claim which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
In her complaint, Plaintiff seeks to sue the Salem County Jail based on events that occurred while she was incarcerated in the jail. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was “beat up,” “maced” and was thrown in a shower by a group of unspecified corrections officers at the jail. (Id. at 3, ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) However, Plaintiff names only the Salem County Jail as a defendant. (ECF No. 1 at 2.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff will be granted in forma pauperis status, this Court is required to screen her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to the statute, this Court must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, 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. Id. “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).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 Fed.Appx. 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Serverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)).
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a district court is required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,228 (3d Cir. 2008), but need not accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,286 (1986). A complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations” to survive a motion to dismiss, but must contain “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint “that offers 'labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,”' and a complaint will not “suffice” if it provides only “'naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570), “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.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A complaint that provides facts “merely consistent with” the defendant's liability “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility” and will not survive review under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. (quoting Twombly, 555 U.S. at 557). While pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed in conducting such an analysis, pro se litigants must still “allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
in. DISCUSSION
In her complaint, Plaintiff seeks to bring a civil rights claim against the Salem County Jail based on injuries she suffered during a confrontation with jail staff A county jail, however, is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Harris v. Hudson Cnty, Jail, No. 14-6284, 2015 WL 1607703, at *5 (D.N.J. April 8, 2015), As the sole named Defendant in this matter is not a person subject to suit under the statute, Plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed without prejudice. Id.
To the extent Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint in this matter and does not know the names of the officers involved in the incident, she may attempt to plead them as John Doe Officers so long as she provides sufficient allegations as to what actions each John Doe took during the alleged assault.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1-3) shall be GRANTED, Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. An order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.