EDMONDS v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/27/2017. (tf, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DARNELL EDMONDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil Action
No. 16-cv-08481 (JBS-AMD)
OPINION
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
Darnell Edmonds, Plaintiff Pro Se
101 E. Gibbsboro Road, Apt. 1311
Lindenwold, NJ 08021
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Darnell Edmonds 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 “had to sleep on the
floor my whole stay in the jail . . . either under the table or
right next to the door.” Complaint § III(C). Plaintiff states
that these events occurred: “3-7-02 9:00 p.m., 4-12-03 4:45
p.m., 3-9-04 5:50 p.m., 11-9-05 6:30 p.m.” Id. § III(B).
Plaintiff denies sustaining injuries from these incarceration
events. Id. § IV (“none”). With respect to requested relief,
Plaintiff states: “Honestly, I’ll take whatever my fair share is
or [$]3,500. I don’t really have a basis for such compensation
because I’ve moved on from that journey in my life.” 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.
2
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
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff experienced
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while incarcerated
on: “3-7-02 9:00 p.m., 4-12-03 4:45 p.m., 3-9-04 5:50 p.m., 119-05 6:30 p.m.” Id. § III(B). 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
3
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 on November 9, 2007 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).
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 Plaintiff may not
file an amended complaint concerning the events of “3-7-02 9:00
p.m., 4-12-03 4:45 p.m., 3-9-04 5:50 p.m., 11-9-05 6:30 p.m.”
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.
April 27, 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?