The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TROY A, BROWN,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 22-5939 (KMW) (AMD)
OPINION
CITY OF CAMDEN, et al.,
Defendants.
WILLIAMS, 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. 8.) Having reviewed the application, this Court finds that leave to proceed in
jorma pauperis is warranted in this matter, and Plaintiff’s application will be granted. Because
Plaintiff will be granted in forma pauperis status in this matter, this Court is required to screen his
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, Plaintiff's complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice in its entirety.
L BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a convicted state prisoner, alleges in his complaint that on October 1, 2021, he
was shot in the face in Camden, New Jersey. (ECF No. 1 at 1-3.) Plaintiff does not clearly allege
who shot him, why he was shot, or the circumstances under which he was shot, but he does allege
that he was immediately taken to the hospital. id.) Although Plaintiff suggests that the City and
County of Camden, the only named Defendants, were in some way responsible for his being shot
because of a “custom, practice, policy, and/or procedure coupled with an abdication of
responsibilities & duties,” he does not identify any policy, practice, procedure, or custom which
led to his being shot. Ud.)
Il, LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff will be granted in forma pauperis status, this Court is required to screen
his 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. Jd. “The
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 App’x 120, 122 Gd Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v.
Seiverling, 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.’” Jd. (quoting Bel/ 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.” Jd. (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.” Jd. (quoting Twomb/y, 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). Jd. (quoting Twombly, 555 US. at
557). While pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed in conducting such an analysis, pro se
litigants must stiil “allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown
Bay Marina, inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
lll. DISCUSSION
In this matter, Plaintiff seeks to bring civil rights claims against the City and County of
Camden arising out of his being shot in the face in October 2021 under unknown circumstances,
Even assuming that the shooter was a police officer or other figure employed by either the city or
county, Plaintiff's complaint falls far short of alleging a plausible claim for relief against either the
city or county. Although a municipal entity, such as a city or county, may be sued under § 1983,
such a suit may not be based solely on vicarious theories of liability -- i.c., a defendant in a civil
rights matter may not be sued based solely on their employment of the alleged wrongdoer or
supervisory authority over that wrongdoer. See, e.g., Igbal, 556 U.S. at 676; Rode v. Dellarciprete,
845 F.2d 1195, 1207-08 (3d Cir. 1988). Instead, a plaintiff must plead facts indicating that the
municipal party was directly involved in the alleged wrongs. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207. To plead
such a claim against a municipal entity, a plaintiff must plead facts indicating that the municipality
caused the alleged constitutional violation through the issuance or adoption of a policy, practice,
or custom which was the moving force behind the alleged violation. See, e.g., City of Canton v.
Harris, 489 U.S, 378, 389 (1989); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55 (1978);
see also Los Angeles Cnty. v. Humphries, 562. U.S. 29, 35-36 (2010), A municipality may therefore
be held liable in three situations:
The first is where “the appropriate officer or entity promulgates a
generally applicable statement of policy and the subsequent act
complained of is simply an implementation of that policy.” [Bd. Of
Cnty. Comm'rs of Bryan County, Oklahoma v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397,
417 (1997)]. The second occurs where “no rule has been announced
as policy but federal law has been violated by an act of the
policymaker itself” /d Finally, a policy or custom may also exist
where “the policymaker has failed to act affirmatively at all,
[though] the need to take some action to control the agents of the
government ‘is so obvious, and the inadequacy of existing practice
so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the
policymaker can reasonably be said to have been deliberately
indifferent to that need.’” Jd. at 417-18[] (quoting [City of Canton],
489 US. [at] 390[).]
Natale v. Camden County Corr, Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 584 (3d Cir. 2003).
In his complaint, Plaintiff does not connect the injury he suffered — being shot in the face
-~ to any action of the named Defendants. He does not identify a custom, policy, or practice which
resulted in his being shot, and in no way pleads facts connecting the Defendants to his injuries
other than the mere location where he was shot. Because Plaintiff has failed to show that the
named municipal defendants were personally involved in the alleged wrong, his complaint fails to
allege a plausible claim for relief and must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim for which relief may be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No, 8) shall be GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety, An order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
□ None acon □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
Hon/ Naren M, Williams,
United States District Judge