DILL v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 8/15/2018. (rss, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RAYMOND EDWARD DILL,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action
No. 16-cv-6408(JBS-AMD)
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
Raymond Edward Dill, Plaintiff Pro Se
1208 Clements Bridge Road, Apt 7
Barrington, NJ 08007
SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge:
1.
Plaintiff Raymond Edward Dill seeks to bring a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden
County Jail (“CCJ”). Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
2.
Based on Plaintiff’s affidavit of indigency, the Court
will grant his in forma pauperis application. Docket Entry 1-2.
3.
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.
4.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
5.
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)).
6.
Plaintiff alleges he was mistreated by CCJ officers
between 2007 and 2009. Complaint § III. He alleges he was
stripped searched “in an unlikely matter” when he was brought in
the facility and told to do other “unconstitutionable [sic]”
things. Id.
2
7.
Plaintiff's complaint is barred by the statute of
limitations, which is governed by New Jersey's two-year
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).1 The accrual date of a § 1983 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).
8.
“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 knew of the allegedly unconstitutional
actions of the officers at the CCJ at the time his detention
ended in 2009; therefore, the statute of limitations for
Plaintiff's claims expired in 2011 at the latest. As there are
no grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations,2
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).
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
3
the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice, meaning
Plaintiff may not refile his complaint. 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).
9.
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
10.
An appropriate order follows.
August 15, 2018
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge
162, 166 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Santos ex rel. Beato v. United
States, 559 F.3d 189, 197 (3d Cir. 2009)).
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?