JONES v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 5/8/17. (jbk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAMES JONES,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-7854(JBS-AMD)
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY
CORRECTION FACILITY,
OPINION
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
James Jones, Plaintiff Pro Se
237613/601257B
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, NJ 08625
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff James Jones seeks to bring a civil rights
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden County
Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) 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 “forced to lock in
a cell with three other prisoners in a cell designed for two
prisoners[,] and that he “had to endure sleeping on the floor
[and] eating on the floor due to inadequate space.” Complaint §
III(C). These events allegedly occurred on the following dates:
“8-29-89 to 9-29-89, 4-9-90 to 4-30-90 [and] 6-29-90 to 10-1991.” Id. § III(B). Plaintiff claims to have sustained
“expos[ure] to violence, secondhand smoke, and unsafe and
dangerous conditions” from these events. Id. § IV. Plaintiff
seeks $35,000 in punitive damages “from each defendant.” 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
2
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)).
IV. DISCUSSION
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff experienced
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while incarcerated
during: “8-29-89 to 9-29-89, 4-9-90 to 4-30-90 [and] 6-29-90 to
10-19-91.” Complaint § III. 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
3
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,
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 October 1993 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).
4
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 1989 through
1991. 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.
May 8, 2017
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
5
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?