BEY v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECITONAL FACILITY et al

Filing 2

OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 2/1/17. (js)

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

RAVANNA STEPHENS BEY,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-7695 (JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECITONAL
FACILITY; ET AL.,

OPINION

Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
Ravanna Stephens Bey, Plaintiff Pro Se
214 Hope Court
Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Ravanna Stephens Bey seeks to bring a civil
rights complaint pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), Warden David
Owens, and Camden County Board of Freeholders. Complaint, Docket
Entry 1. Based on Plaintiff’s affidavit of indigency, the Court
will grant her 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 May 2011, she was detained in

the Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) in an
overcrowded cell “with 4 inmates in a 2 man cell on floor that’s
dirty, sleeping next to toilet.” Complaint § III. She further
alleges she has been involved in fights from being urinated on
while sleeping on the floor near the toilet. She further alleges
she was denied basic needs such as being provided toilet paper
and cleaning supplies as well as being provided proper food as
on two occasions she had to eat spoiled food. She further
alleges she was denied proper medical attention for rashes that
developed from the conditions in the jail. 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

2

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
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in the CCCF that she
experienced during May 2011. 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.

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
3

Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Dique v. N.J. State Police,
603 F.3d 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 she was detained in May 2011.
The allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement at CCCF
would have been immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of
her detention; therefore, the statute of limitations for
Plaintiff’s claims expired May 2013 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)

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).
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

(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.

February 1, 2017
Date

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

5