ROBINSON v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
Filing
7
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 2/7/18. (js)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BRIAN J. ROBINSON,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 17-cv-1264(JBS-AMD)
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL,
OPINION
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
Brian J. Robinson, Plaintiff Pro Se
263207-C/1076420
South Woods State Prison
215 South Burlington Road
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
SIMANDLE, United States District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Brian J. Robinson seeks to bring a civil rights
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden County
Jail (“CCJ”) 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 “was housed in a[n]
overcrowded cell holding 4 people with 2 bunks. I slept on the
floor the whole time. I acquired severe lower back pains,
constant sciatic nerve pain, & a sharp intense pain in my right
hip which shoots down to my calf. The Camden County Jail injured
me for life.” Complaint § III(C). Plaintiff states that these
events occurred “2013 [for] 4 mos. July to November.” Id. §
III(B). Plaintiff claims to have sustained a “sciatic nerve
issue. I also must do specific yoga stretches to help some of
the pain especially in the pm. 7 stretches exactly.” Id. § IV.
Plaintiff seeks relief of “$100.00 a day for every day spent in
the jail” and “my surgery [to relieve sciatic nerve issue] paid
for in full.” 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
2
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
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 in “2013” during the
“4 mo[nth]” period from “July to November” that year. Complaint
§ III(B). Civil rights claims under § 1983 are governed by New
3
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 November 2015 at the latest, well
before this Complaint was filed on February 23, 2017. (Docket
Entry 1.) 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).
4
As it is clear from the face of the Complaint that more
than two years passed from the time when Plaintiff’s claims
accrued until he filed this Complaint, the Complaint must be
dismissed with prejudice, meaning Plaintiff may not file an
amended complaint concerning the events in “July to November” of
“2013.” 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.
February 7, 2018
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
United States 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?