Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON

Plain Civil Action No, 25-169 (RK-JTQ)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SGT, BROWN,

Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Christopher Johnson’s filing of a civil rights

Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”), At this time, the

Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP application! and dismisses the Complaint without prejudice for

failure to state a claim for relief.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110

Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (Apr. 26, 1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review prisoner

complaints when the prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, that

fail to state a clatm upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Whether a

complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard

applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher

' Plaintiff submitted his Complaint and IFP application when he was still incarcerated but has

since been released and has updated his address. (ECF No. 2.)

v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether

the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). At this

early stage, the Court accepts facts alleged in the pro se complaint as true, draws all reasonable

inferences in the plaintiff's favor, and asks only whether the complaint, liberally construed,

contains facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Shorter v, United States, 12 F.4th 366,

374 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774, 782 (7th Cir. 2015)). The Court

does not credit conclusory allegations. fgbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Because Plaintiff is proceeding

pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. See Higgs v. Ait’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339

(3d Cir. 2011).

Plaintiff alleges that he is a convicted county inmate. (ECF No. 1, Complaint at 2.) In

October 2024, Defendant Brown allegedly placed Plaintiff in the same housing unit with inmates

with whom Plaintiff should not be housed due to their respective statuses, and officers told

Plaintiff that he needed medical clearance to be moved to a different unit. Gd. at 4-5.) These

inmates were allegedly “maximum and federal status” while Plaintiff was “only county status.”

Cd. at 4.) Plaintiff provides no other facts about the reasons he could not be housed with these

inmates, what risks, if any, he faced, and whether Defendant Brown knew of those risks. He

seeks damages for “emotional distress.” (Ud. at 5.)

The Court construes Plaintiff to assert civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Defendant Sgt. Brown arising from his housing assignment.’ Under the Eighth

Amendment, which applies to convicted prisoners, prison officials “must take reasonable

* The Court does not construe Plaintiff to raise any state law claims. If he intended to raise state

law claims in addition to his civil rights claims, he may include those claims in his amended

complaint.

measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S, 825, 832 (1994),

Id. Gnternal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S, 517, 526-27 (1984);

see also Duran v. Merline, 923 F. Supp.2d 702, 719 (D.N.J. 2013) (explaining that the

Constitution mandates that prison officials satisfy inmates’ “basic human needs—e.g., food,

clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety”) (citing Helling vy. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25,

32 (1993)). ‘To state a claim for deliberate indifference to health or safety, an inmate must plead

facts that show (1) he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious

harm, (2) the official was deliberately indifferent to that substantial risk to his health or safety,

and (3) the official’s deliberate indifference caused him harm. Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 367

(3d Cir, 2012) (citing Farmer, 311 U.S. 834).

Here, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient facts showing he faced a substantial risk of

serious harm or that the Defendant Brown acted with deliberate indifference in assigning

Plaintiff to the same housing unit with inmates who had maximum and federal status. The Court

dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim and provides him with 30 days

to submit an amended complaint.

IT IS, THEREFORE, on this alt ‘day of June 2026,

ORDERED that Complaint shall be filed, ECF No. 1; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED

(ECF No. 1-1); and it is further

ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim for relief; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff may submit an Amended Complaint within 30 days if he can

cure the deficiencies in his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims; and it is further

ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not submit an Amended Complaint, this matter shall

remain closed, and the dismissal shall automatically convert to a dismissal with prejudice;

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff to the

address on file and ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE this case accordingly.

f f ee

/ if

=

ROBERT KIRSCH, a

United'States Districtudge