WALLS v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

Filing 3

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 10/28/2016. (TH, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WILLIAM J. WALLS,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-6240 (JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL,
WARDEN ERIC TAYLOR, WARDEN
DAVID OWENS, and PRISON HEALTH
SERVICES, INC.

OPINION

Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
William J. Walls, Plaintiff Pro Se
1051 Kenwood Ave.
Camden, NJ 08103

SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff William J. Walls seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden
County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), Camden County Jail,
Warden Eric Taylor, Warden David Owens, and Prison Health
Services, Inc. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
At this time, the Court must review the complaint, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the
complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and
because it is time-barred. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that he was detained in the CCCF at the

following times: from February 18, 1994 to July 1996; from April
1997 to 1998; from September 2004 to December 2004; and from
April 18 to May 4, 2010. Complaint § III. He further alleges
that he was housed with three other inmates in a 2-man cell,
forced to sleep on the floor next to the toilet, and denied
medical treatment. Id.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.
To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a
claim, the complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to
2

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)).
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from CCCF for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. However, the
complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.
New Jersey's two-year limitations period for personal
injury governs § 1983 actions in federal court.1 See Wilson v.
Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Dique v. N.J. State Police,
603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010). The accrual date of a § 1983

1

“Although the running of the statute of limitations is
ordinarily an affirmative defense, where that defense is obvious
from the face of the complaint and no development of the record
is necessary, a court may dismiss a time-barred complaint sua
sponte under § 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to
state a claim.” Ostuni v. Wa Wa's Mart, 532 F. App’x 110, 111–12
(3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam).
3

action is determined by federal law, however. Wallace v. Kato,
549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007); Montanez v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr.,
773 F.3d 472, 480 (3d Cir. 2014). “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, 773 F.3d
at 480 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff states he was detained at CCJ at various times
between February 18, 1995 and May 4, 2010. 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 Plaintiff’s
claims expired, at the latest, on May 4, 2012. Plaintiff filed
this case too late and it will be dismissed. As there are no
grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations,2 the
complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Ostuni v. Wa Wa's
Mart, 532 F. App’x 110, 112 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)
(affirming dismissal with prejudice due to expiration of statute
of limitations).
V.

CONCLUSION

2

Equitable tolling “is only appropriate ‘(1) where the defendant
has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the plaintiff's
cause of action; (2) where the plaintiff in some extraordinary
way has been prevented from asserting his or her rights; or (3)
where the plaintiff has timely asserted his or her rights
mistakenly in the wrong forum.’” Omar v. Blackman, 590 F. App’x
162, 166 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Santos ex rel. Beato v. United
States, 559 F.3d 189, 197 (3d Cir. 2009)).
4

For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. An appropriate order
follows.

October 28, 2016
Date

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

5