MOORE v. CCCFJ
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
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Loresha Moore, Plaintiff Pro Se
1 East Randolph St., Apt. A-6
Camden, NJ 08105
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
Plaintiff Loresha Moore seeks to bring an amended civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden
County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”). Amended Complaint, Docket
Entry 5. On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff’s original complaint was
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and Plaintiff was
granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. Docket Entry
4. Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on March 13,
At this time, the Court must review the amended 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 amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
Plaintiff alleges that from June 2005 to March 2006, she
was detained in the CCCF. Amended Complaint § III. She further
states: “Put into cell with other inmates slept on the floor by
the toilet and hit my head and neck, and back repeatedly fell
off the bunk onto me.” Id.
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.
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). “[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)).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that she experienced
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while she was
detained in the CCCF from June 2005 to March 2006. 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 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)).
The allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement at
CCCF, namely the alleged overcrowding, would have been
immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of her detention;
therefore, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims
expired, at the latest, in 2008, well before this complaint was
filed in 2016. Plaintiff has filed her 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 her cause of action, there are no
extraordinary circumstances that prevented Plaintiff from filing
her claim, and there is nothing to indicate Plaintiff filed her
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 amended complaint that
more than two years have passed since Plaintiff’s claims
accrued, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice, meaning she
may not file an amended complaint concerning the events of 2005
to 2006. 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).
For the reasons stated above, the amended complaint is
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. An
appropriate order follows.
April 13, 2017
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
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?