HIGGINS v. NO DEFENDANT LISTED

Filing 3

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/24/17. (jbk, )

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

KELLY A. HIGGINS,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action
No. 16-8315(JBS-AMD)

(NO DEFENDANT NAMED).

OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Kelly A. Higgins, Plaintiff Pro Se
202 Williams Avenue
Deptford, NJ 08096
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Kelly A. Higgins seeks to bring a civil rights
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket
Entry 1. Although Plaintiff does not name a defendant in the
caption or in § I(B) of her Complaint, this Court will construe
Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting claims against Camden County
Jail (“CCJ”), based on Plaintiff’s allegations against “Camden
County Jail” in § III(A) of her Complaint.
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
In the Complaint, Plaintiff states: “I was in a cell with

four girls including me (6 years ago) several times.” Complaint
§ II(B); § III(B) (“Six years ago several times. 4 girls to a
cell”). Plaintiff does not specify injuries allegedly sustained
in connection with these events. Id. § IV (“not good”).
Plaintiff seeks $2,000 in relief. 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
“several times six years ago.” Complaint §§ II(B), III(B).
Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this case on November 7, 2016.
Docket Entry 1. Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff’s
Complaint to contend that the allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement occurred at various times in 2000.

3

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,
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 2002 at the latest, well before
this Complaint was filed on November 7, 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

4

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 2000. 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.

April 24, 2017
Date

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

5