BLACKSON v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS et al

Filing 3

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 6/30/2017. (dmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROBERT BLACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD
OF FREEHOLDERS, WARDEN
DAVID OWENS, and WARDEN
J. TAYLOR,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil Action
No. 16-cv-07677 (JBS-AMD)
OPINION

Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
Robert Blackson, Plaintiff Pro Se
2807 N. Constitution Road
Camden, NJ 08104
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Robert Blackson seeks to bring a civil rights
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden County
Board of Freeholders (“BOF”), Warden David Owens (“Owens”), and
Warden J. Taylor (“Taylor”) 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 “was placed in a

holding cell with about 10 other men and I had to sleep on the
floor . . . [a]round or about 2009 and 2012.” Complaint §§
III(B)-(C). Plaintiff denies sustaining injuries from these
events. Id. § IV (“no”). Plaintiff seeks “compensat[ion] for the
mental stress and mental anguish I had to endure in the amount
that the Court would deem appropriate.” Id. § V.
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
2

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 in
“2009 and 2012.” 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 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir.
2010). “Under federal law, a cause of action accrues ‘when the
3

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,
namely the purported overcrowding and sleeping conditions in
cells, would have been immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the
time of detention; therefore, the statute of limitations for
Plaintiff’s claims expired in 2014 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 “2009 and
4

2012.” Complaint § III(B). 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).

V.

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

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

June 30, 2017
Date

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

5