NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SABRINA STRICKLAND, Plaintit, Civil Action No. 22-2600 (KMW) (MJS) □ OPINION SALEM COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.

WILLIAMS, District Judge: This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s sta sponte screening of Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) and the Court’s review of Plaintiff's 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 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

(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,

L 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 after a staff member woke her and had a brief interaction wherein Plaintiff thought the staff member asked

if Plaintiff wanted food, but had in fact told Plaintiff she was to be strip searched, and Plaintiff refused. (id. at 3-7.) The staff member left, then returned with several guards who maced and restrained Plaintiff. Ud.) Plaintiff apparently broke one of her toes during the confrontation. Ud.)

I. LEGAL STANDARD Because Plaintiff will be granted in forma pauperis status, this Court is required to screen her complaint pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to the statute, this Court must sue 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

(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,

(3d Cir, 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling,

(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,

(3d Cir. 2008), but need not accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Papasan v. Allain,

(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,’” Ja. (quoting Bell Ailantic v. Twombly,

(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,

). “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 Twombly,

). 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). fd (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.,

(3d Cir, 2013).

ili. 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

. See Harris v. Hudson Cnty. Jail, No. 14-6284,

, 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, Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed without prejudice. Jd.

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons expressed above, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1-3) shall be GRANTED, Plaintiff's 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.

Lv / □□ 4 Ga NSS SS NOD ee Hon, Karen M. Williams, ‘United States District Judge