SAUNDERS v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

Filing 13

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/14/2018. (tf, n.m.)

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

MICHAEL L. SAUNDERS,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-6901(JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY; WARDEN DAVID OWENS;
FREEHOLDERS,

OPINION

Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
Michael L. Saunders, Plaintiff Pro Se
518 Trenton Ave
Camden, NJ 08103

SIMANDLE, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of a letter from Plaintiff Michael
Saunders asking the Court not to dismiss his complaint for
failure to state a claim. Letter, Docket Entry 12. The Court
will interpret this as a motion for reconsideration and deny it
accordingly.
1.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 11, 2016

alleging he was detained in the Camden County Correctional
Facility (“CCCF”) in 2005, 2009, and 2012, “each time for
several months before being transferred to state prison.”
Complaint § III. He alleged that he had to sleep on the floor of

the cells during each of these periods of incarceration due to
there being three other inmates in there with him at the time.
Id. He claimed that the units were so crowded, he often had to
stand to eat meals. Id.
2.

He further alleged that the shower area was dirty, law

library time was limited, and that the kitchen was infested with
mice. He stated that staph infections and boils were common. Id.
3.

The Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) because Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis.
As the Court explained in its opinion, § 1915 requires the Court
to 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.
4.

The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state

a claim because it was clear on the complaint’s face that
Plaintiff’s claims arose more than two years before he filed his
complaint.
5.

Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court asking it to keep

his case open because he “worked several days & hours” to
prepare his complaint and he “filled out the form to the best of
[his] ability.” Letter at 1-2.
6.

Local Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion

for reargument or reconsideration of “matter[s] or controlling
2

decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge
has overlooked ....” Local Civ. R. 7.1(i). Whether to grant a
motion for reconsideration is a matter within the Court's
discretion, but it should only be granted where such facts or
legal authority were indeed presented but overlooked. See DeLong
v. Raymond Int'l Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1140 (3d Cir. 1980),
overruled on other grounds by Croker v. Boeing Co., 662 F.2d 975
(3d Cir. 1981); see also Williams v. Sullivan, 818 F. Supp. 92,
93 (D.N.J. 1993).
7.

To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant

must show: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when
the court ... [rendered the judgment in question]; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.” U.S. ex rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm.
L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Max's Seafood
Café ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir. 1999)). The standard of review involved in a motion for
reconsideration is high and relief is to be granted sparingly.
United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994).
8.

The Court will deny the request to reinstate the

complaint. The complaint was dismissed because Plaintiff filed
it too late.

3

9.

According to Plaintiff, he was incarcerated in CCCF in

2005, 2009, and 2012. Claims under § 1983 must be filed in state
or federal court within two years of the date of the claim’s
accrual, meaning the date when “‘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)).
10.

Plaintiff would have known about the allegedly

unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the time he was in
CCCF. See McCargo v. Camden Cty. Jail, 693 F. App'x 164, 166 (3d
Cir. 2017) (“His claims accrued as he endured the circumstances
while confined.”). Therefore, Plaintiff had until 2014 at the
latest to file his § 1983 complaint.
11.

Plaintiff did not file his complaint in this Court

until October 11, 2016, two years after the time for filing a §
1983 complaint expired. Nothing in Plaintiff’s letter warrants
extending the statute of limitations. See Omar v. Blackman, 590
F. App’x 162, 166 (3d Cir. 2014).
12.

The Court properly dismissed the complaint because

Plaintiff filed it too late. Mere disagreement with the Court’s
decision is not a basis for reconsideration. See P. Schoenfeld
Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352
(D.N.J. 2001).

4

13.

For the reasons stated above, the motion for

reconsideration is denied. An appropriate order follows.

March 14, 2018
Date

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

5