BROOKS v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Filing 3

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 5/9/2017. (TH, )

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

TIA BROOKS,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-08309(JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,

OPINION

Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
Tia Brooks, Plaintiff Pro Se
25535 8th Street, Apt. D-12
Camden, NJ 08104
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Tia Brooks seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden County
Correctional Facility (“CCCF”). 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
Plaintiff alleges that she was detained in CCCF in or about

2001, 2004, and 2006. Complaint § III. She states: “I am
sincerely sorry for my behavior. I have paid my time to society.
My visits to the Camden Correctional Facility were just
humiliating. I was put in the holding cell, where there were
over 8 girls in there. I had to sit on cold floors and eat
rotten green bologna sandwichs [sic] with sour milk. The food
had been sitting out all day and night. I’ve spent over 8 hours
sitting on cold floor with sick girls. There’s one steel toilet
that hasn’t been cleaned. Blood on it. No t[oi]let paper. This
is how what every guard was on duty treated us. Unfortunately
every time I was incarcerated I was always put in the cell and
sleeped [sic] on the floors. Under the t[oi]let were the urine
slid down to the side of t[oi]let bowl and smell of feces. Could
never sleep because other inmate had to use the t[oi]let. So the
t[oi]lets constantly flushed. I was packed in a cell like a
sardine. I was so cold in the cells. I pleaded for blankets, but
always ignored. I can go inside the Correctional Facility and
2

show you every cell I was in, on the cold floors. The inmates
that shared a cell with me witness these things.” Id.
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
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,

3

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 CCCF in 2001, 2004, and 2006. 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 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
CCCF, namely the alleged overcrowding, spoiled food, and
unsanitary conditions, would have been immediately apparent to
Plaintiff at the time of her detention; therefore, the statute
of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims expired in 2003, 2006, and
2008, respectively, 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
4

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
complaint is dismissed with prejudice, meaning she may not file
an amended complaint concerning the events of 2001, 2004, and
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.

May 9, 2017
Date

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

5