FUSSELL v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

Filing 2

OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/29/17. (js)

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

SHAKERA FUSSELL,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-8155(JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY; ET AL.,

OPINION

Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
Shakera Fussell, Plaintiff Pro Se
101 E. Gibbsboro Rd. Apt 1305
Lindenwold, NJ 08021

SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Shakera Fussell seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden County
Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), Monmouth County Correctional
Institution, and Salem Correctional Facility. 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 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
Plaintiff alleges that in April 2006 she was detained in

the Camden County Correctional Facility in an “overcrowded
population” and “forced to sleep on a mat w/o boat on concrete
floor.” She further alleges that in May 2006 she was detained in
Monmouth County Correctional Institution and “bitten by a brown
recluse (spider).” She further alleges that in July 2006 she was
detained in the Salem County Correctional Facility and “was
locked down 23 hrs a day and abruptly moved in the wee hours of
the morning w/o explanation.” Complaint § III.
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) (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’s complaint alleges that she experienced
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while she was
detained in the Camden County Correctional Facility, Monmouth
Correctional Institution and Salem County Correctional Facility.
Civil rights claims under § 1983 are governed by New Jersey's
limitations period for personal injury and must be brought
3

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
these facilities, would have been immediately apparent to
Plaintiff at the time of her detention; therefore, the statute
of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims expired in 2008 at the
latest, 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 complaint that more
than two years have passed since Plaintiff’s claims accrued, the
4

complaint is dismissed with prejudice, meaning she may not file
an amended complaint concerning the events of 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).
V.

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

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

March 29, 2017
Date

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

5