COOK v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 12/28/2016. (tf, n.m.)

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

DARRIS T. COOK,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-7272 (JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; DAVID S. OWENS,
JR.,

OPINION

Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
Darris T. Cook, Plaintiff Pro Se
1422 Belleview Ave.
Camden, New Jersey 08103
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Darris T. Cook seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden
County Department of Corrections (“CCDOC”) and David S. Owens,
Jr. Complaint, Docket Entry 1. Based on Plaintiff’s affidavit of
indigency, the Court will grant his application to proceed in
forma pauperis.
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. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that during August 2003, as well as April

to July 2004 and August to October 2007, he was detained in the
Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”). Complaint § III. He
further alleges that during these dates he was “forced to lay on
a concrete floor of an overcrowded cell with no mattress.”

He

further alleges that “the floor was saturated with urine and
vomit” and he was “forced to take showers in a shower that was
covered in black mold and fungus.”

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 for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in the CCCF that he
experienced between August 2003, April to July 2004 and August
to October 2007. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the statute
of limitations, which is governed by New Jersey's two-year
limitations period for personal injury.1 See Wilson v. Garcia,
471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d

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

181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010). 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).
“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 in August 2003,
April to July 2004 and August to October 2007. 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 October 2009 at the latest. 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).

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

V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed with

prejudice for failure to state a claim. An appropriate order
follows.

December 28, 2016
Date

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

5