United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Gerald Edwards, a self-represented litigant, filed this civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Bucks
County Correctional Facility based on the conditions of his
recent confinement. Mr. Edwards seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court
will grant Mr. Edwards leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss his Complaint with leave to file an
typical of Mr. Edwards's filings, his Complaint consists
of sparse allegations and voluminous exhibits. Mr. Edwards
has been found guilty of numerous summary offenses based on
violations of local ordinances related to the maintenance of
his property. See Commonwealth v. Edwards,
CP-09-SA-0000219-2018; CP-09-SA-0000301-2018 (Bucks Cty. Ct.
of Common Pleas). This is the seventh lawsuit that Mr.
Edwards has filed about these citations or events stemming
from or related to his prosecution, conviction, and related
confinement. See Edwards v. Morgan, Civ. A. No.
18-4776 (E.D. Pa.); Edwards v. McDermott, Civ. A.
No. 18-4777 (E.D. Pa.); Edwards v. Morgan, Civ. A.
No. 19-1897 (E.D. Pa.); Edwards v. Rice, Civ. A. No.
19-3559 (E.D. Pa.); Edwards v. Baranoski, Civ. A.
No. 19-4609 (E.D. Pa.); Edwards v. Freed, Civ. A.
No. 19-4851 (E.D. Pa).
instant lawsuit, Mr. Edwards raises claims based on the
conditions of his confinement at the Bucks County
Correctional Facility from April 3, 2019 through April 8,
2019. Mr. Edwards alleges that he informed the nurse at the
"admitting place or intake center" that he had two
infected teeth, that he had been feeling dizzy over the past
few weeks, and that he suffers from emphysema. (Compl. ECF
No. 2 at 9.) Mr. Edwards also alleges that he submitted
paperwork to see a doctor. He claims that he did not receive
medical treatment during his brief
incarceration. Mr. Edwards seeks unspecified equitable
relief and damages in the amount of $500, 000.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court will grant Mr. Edwards leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because it appears that he is not capable of
paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly,
Mr. Edwards's Complaint is subject to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), which require the Court to dismiss
the Complaint if it frivolous or fails to state a claim. A
complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact," Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and is legally baseless if it is
"based on an indisputably meritless legal theory."
Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d
Cir. 1995). To survive dismissal, the complaint must contain
"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). "[M]ere conclusory statements do
not suffice." Id. Mr. Edwards is proceeding
pro se, the Court construes his allegations
liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333,
339 (3d Cir. 2011).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state
law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
County jails are not "persons" that are
"subject to suit under federal civil rights laws."
Regan v. Upper Darby Twp., No. CIV A 06-1686, 2009
WL 650384, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2009), affd, 363
Fed.Appx. 917 (3d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Bucks County
Correctional Facility is not an entity susceptible to suit
under § 1983. The Bucks County Correctional Facility is
the only Defendant in this matter. Therefore, Mr.
Edwards's claims fail. However, it is possible that Mr.
Edwards could amend his Complaint to state a claim against an
appropriate defendant. Therefore, he will be given an
opportunity to file an amended complaint based on the alleged
failure to provide medical care during his recent
foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Mr. Edwards leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaint
without prejudice to his riling an amended complaint in the
event he can state a plausible claim against an appropriate
defendant based on the conditions of confinement. An
appropriate Order follows.
 Mr. Edwards also raises allegations
about the prosecution or prosecutions that led to his
conviction and imprisonment. These allegations are unrelated
to his claims pertaining to his conditions of confinement.
Furthermore, Mr. Edwards has raised the same or similar
allegations in prior lawsuits. Because the Court has already
addressed these allegations in Mr. Edwards's prior
lawsuits, any claims based on those allegations are dismissed
as duplicative. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Brodzki v. CBS Sports, Civ. A. No.
11-841, 2012 WL 125281, at *1 (D. Del. Jan. 13, 2012)
(explaining that "a district court may dismiss a
complaint as malicious if it is plainly abusive of the
judicial process or merely repeats pending or previously