IVEY v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Filing 5

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 6/29/2017. (rtm, )

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

TERRYLE EDDIE IVEY,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 17-0610(JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,

OPINION

Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
Terryle Eddie Ivey, Plaintiff Pro Se
526635B/ 657379
Northern State Prison
P.O. Box 2300
Newark, NJ 07114

SIMANDLE, District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Terryle Eddie Ivey seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the 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. § 1915A 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. § 1915A(b)(1).
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that he was detained in the CCCF from

March 2004 to April 2005 and May 2009 to May 2010. Complaint §
III. His complaint further states: “I was housed in dirty
overcrowded cells and often had to sleep on a cold, filthy dirty
cell floor. I have to share a cell with (3) other people and the
cell was only suitable for one person. Sleeping on the floor
with the toilet only 2 feet from my head, in a cramped area
often where I also had to eat meals because of the overcrowded
conditions of the jail. This torture went on for years on end.”
Id.
III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is a prisoner within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §

1915A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires courts to review complaints
prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is a prisoner
seeking relief from a governmental employee or entity. The Court
must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
2

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. “[T]he legal standard for dismissing a
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915A is
identical to the legal standard employed in ruling on 12(b)(6)
motions.” Courteau v. United States, 287 F. App'x 159, 162 (3d
Cir. 2008) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d
Cir. 2000))."
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he experienced
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while he was detained
in the CCCF from March 2004 to April 2005 as well as from May
2009 to May 2010. 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, would have been
immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of his detention;
therefore, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims
3

expired in May 2012 at the latest, well before this complaint
was filed in 2017. Plaintiff has filed his 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 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 March 2004 to
April 2005 and May 2009 to May 2010. 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.

June 29, 2017
Date

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

5