CHEATHAM v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL

Filing 2

OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/31/17. (js)

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

JAMAL CHEATHAM,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-8326(JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL,

OPINION
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
Jamal Cheatham, Plaintiff Pro Se
320 Berkley Ave. Apt 2
Burlington, NJ 08065

SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Jamal Cheatham seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden County Jail
(“CCJ”). Complaint, Docket Entry 1. Based on Plaintiff’s
affidavit of indigency, the Court will grant his 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 2012, as well as between February

3 and February 28, 2014, he was detained in the CCJ. Complaint §
III. He further alleges he was housed with 3 other inmates
requiring one to sleep on the floor. 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
2

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 he experienced
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while he was detained
in the CCJ in 2012 as well as between February 3 and February
28, 2014. 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)).
3

The allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement at
CCJ, namely the alleged overcrowding, would have been
immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of his detention;
therefore, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims
expired February 28, 2016 at the latest. Plaintiff has filed his
lawsuit too late as he filed on November 7, 2016. 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 his cause of action, there are no extraordinary
circumstances that prevented Plaintiff from filing his claim,
and there is nothing to indicate Plaintiff filed his 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 he may not file
an amended complaint concerning the events of 2012 or February 3
and February 28, 2014. 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).

4

V.

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

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

March 31, 2017
Date

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

5