POWERS v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Filing 4

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/28/2017. (tf, n.m.)

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

SHARON ANN POWERS,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-9391(JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,

OPINION

Defendant.

APPEARANCES:

Sharon Ann Powers, Plaintiff Pro Se
208 Briarwood Road
West Berlin, NJ 08071
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Sharon Ann Powers 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 the CCCF from

November 15 to November 26, 2013 as well as from March 13, 2014
to May 24, 2014. Complaint § III. She further alleges that she
was detained in “disgusting inhumane conditions” and had to
“sleep on the floor.” She further alleges that during the 2014
detention, she was pregnant and still forced 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.

2

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 CCCF from November 15 to November 26, 2013 and
from March 13, 2014 to May 24, 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
3

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, would have been
immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of her detention;
therefore, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims
expired May 24, 2016 at the latest, before this complaint was
filed on December 20, 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
complaint is dismissed with prejudice, meaning she may not file
an amended complaint concerning the events of November 15 to
November 26, 2013 and March 13, 2014 to May 24, 2014. Ostuni v.
Wa Wa's Mart, 532 F. App’x 110, 112 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)
4

(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.

p

April 28, 2017
Date

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

5