POLLITT v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTION FACILITY

Filing 3

OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 10/26/16. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

MARVIN POLLITT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN
COUNTY
FACILITY,

Civil Action
No. 16-cv-05906 (JBS-AMD)

CORRECTION
OPINION

Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
Marvin Pollitt, Plaintiff Pro Se
1501 Old Black Horse Pike Apt. K-6
Blackwood, NJ 08012
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.

Plaintiff Marvin Pollitt seeks to bring a civil rights

complaint pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden
County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in CCCF. Complaint,
Docket Entry 1.
2.

Section 1915(e)(2) requires a court to review

complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court must sua sponte dismiss
any claim that is frivolous, is 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. This action is

subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
3.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will

dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
4.

To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a

claim, the complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to
show that the claim is facially plausible. Fowler v. UPMS
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
“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.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308
n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “[A]
pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
5.

The claims against CCCF for monetary damages must be

dismissed with prejudice as a prison is not an entity subject to
suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Crawford v. McMillian, No. 163412, 2016 WL 6134846 (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 2016) (citing Fischer v.
Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)).

2

6.

Plaintiff may be able to amend the complaint to name

state actors who were personally involved in the alleged
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, however. To that
end, the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.1
7.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must

plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that a
constitutional violation has occurred in order to survive this
Court’s review under § 1915. Plaintiff alleges he experienced
unconstitutional conditions of confinement during his detention
at the CCCF at various points between 2008 and 2016. Complaint ¶
III. He states: “I was on the floor and I kept banging my knee
on bottom bunk my roommate jumped down and landed on right knee
and lower back I had to sleep close to the toilet and urin[e]
was sprinkled on my mattress.” Id. Even accepting the statement
as true for screening purposes only, there is not enough factual
support for the Court to infer a constitutional violation has
occurred.
8.

The mere fact that an individual is lodged temporarily

in a cell with more persons than its intended design does not
rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Rhodes v.
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348–50 (1981) (holding double-celling by

1

The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
3

itself did not violate Eighth Amendment); Carson v. Mulvihill,
488 F. App'x 554, 560 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[M]ere double-bunking
does not constitute punishment, because there is no ‘one man,
one cell principle lurking in the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.’” (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 542
(1979))). More is needed to demonstrate that such crowded
conditions, for a pretrial detainee, shocks the conscience and
thus violates due process rights. See Hubbard v. Taylor, 538
F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting due process analysis
requires courts to consider whether the totality of the
conditions “cause inmates to endure such genuine privations and
hardship over an extended period of time, that the adverse
conditions become excessive in relation to the purposes assigned
to them.”).
9.

In the event Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he

should include specific facts, such as the specific dates and
length of his confinement(s), whether he was a pretrial detainee
or convicted prisoner, any specific individuals who were
involved in creating or failing to remedy the conditions of
confinement, and any other relevant facts regarding the
conditions of confinement.2

2

To the extent the complaint seeks relief for conditions
Plaintiff encountered prior to his 2015 and 2016 confinements
those claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Claims
brought under § 1983 are governed by New Jersey's two-year
4

10.

Plaintiff should note that when an amended complaint

is filed,3 the original complaint no longer performs any function
in the case and cannot be utilized to cure defects in the
amended complaint, unless the relevant portion is specifically
incorporated in the new complaint. 6 Wright, Miller & Kane,
Federal Practice and Procedure 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (footnotes
omitted). An amended complaint may adopt some or all of the
allegations in the original complaint, but the identification of
the particular allegations to be adopted must be clear and
explicit. Id. To avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an
amended complaint that is complete in itself. Id.
11.

For the reasons stated above, the complaint is

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The
Court will reopen the matter in the event Plaintiff files an
amended complaint within the time allotted by the Court.

limitations period for personal injury. See Wilson v. Garcia,
471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d
181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010). “Under federal law, a cause of action
accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the
injury upon which the action is based.” Montanez v. Sec'y Pa.
Dep't of Corr., 773 F.3d 472, 480 (3d Cir. 2014). The allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at CCCF would have
been immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of his
detention; therefore, the statute of limitations for some of
Plaintiff’s claims expired April 2015 at the latest. In the
event Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, he should
limit his complaint to his April 2015 to August 2015 and
September 2015 to June 2016 confinements.
3 The amended complaint shall be subject to screening prior to
service.
5

12.

An appropriate order follows.

October 26, 2016
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

6