PAYTON v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL et al
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/13/2017. (tf, n.m.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MISHA PAYTON, also known
as MISHA JOHNSON,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-6441(JBS-AMD)
v.
OPINION
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL and
CAMDEN COUNTY,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
Misha Payton, also known as Misha Johnson
Plaintiff Pro Se
638 South 4th Street
Camden, NJ 08103
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Misha Payton, also known as Misha Johnson, seeks
to bring a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Camden County Jail (“CCJ”), Camden County (“CC”), Camden
County Corrections Facility (“CCCF”), and Camden County
Department of Corrections
(“CCDOC”) for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 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, it is clear from the Complaint
that the claim arose more than two years before the Complaint
was filed. It is therefore barred by the two-year statute of
limitations that governs claims of unconstitutional conduct
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will therefore dismiss the
Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
II.
BACKGROUND
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff “served my time” in
Camden County Jail. Complaint § III(C). Plaintiff states that
these events occurred “2006 - 2013.” Id. § III(B). Plaintiff
claims to have required “physical therapy” in connection with
incarceration. Id. § IV. Plaintiff does not quantify the relief
being sought. Id. § V (“I want monetary compensation”).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Section 1915(e)(2) requires a court to review complaints
prior to service of the summons and complaint 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.
2
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
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
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff experienced
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while incarcerated
during the period “2006 - 2013.” Complaint § III(B). Civil
rights claims under § 1983 are governed by New Jersey's
limitations period for personal injury and must be brought
within two years of the claim’s accrual. See Wilson v. Garcia,
471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Dique v. New Jersey State Police, 603
3
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) (quoting
Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009)).
Allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement would
have been immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of
detention; therefore, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s
claims expired in 2015 at the latest, well before this Complaint
was filed in 2016. Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit too late.
Although the Court may toll, or extend, the statute of
limitations in the interests of justice, certain circumstances
must be present before it can do so. Tolling is not warranted in
this case because the state has not “actively misled” Plaintiff
as to the existence of Plaintiff’s cause of action, there are no
extraordinary circumstances that prevented Plaintiff from filing
the claim, and there is nothing to indicate Plaintiff filed the
claim on time but in the wrong forum. See Omar v. Blackman, 590
F. App’x 162, 166 (3d Cir. 2014).
As it is clear from the face of the Complaint that more
than two years have passed since Plaintiff’s claims accrued, the
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, meaning Plaintiff may not
file an amended complaint concerning the events of “2006 2013.” Complaint § III(B). Ostuni v. Wa Wa's Mart, 532 F. App’x
4
110, 112 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal with
prejudice due to expiration of statute of limitations).
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. An appropriate order
follows.
April 13, 2017
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
5
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?