MUHAMMAD v. CITY OF NEWARK et al
Filing
9
OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 11/25/13. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
1
v.
OPINION
et al.,
CITY OF
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
Kwasi Sekou Muhammed
72 South 9th Street
Newark, NJ 07107
Petitioner Pro Se
CECCHI, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion to re-open this case and file an
amended Complaint (Dkt. # 7).
Plaintiff has requested appointment of pro bono counsel.
Plaintiffs motion to re-open will be granted and the Clerk of the Court will be directed to file the
I. BACKGROUND
211
Plaintiff
now
In
and
a
amended Complaint,
the same defendants as in
original Complaint.
his motion accompanying the
amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that he was shot on May 29, 1993, taken to the UMDNJ
hospital where a below-the-knee amputation was performed on his left leg as a result of the
shooting. Plaintiff was later incarcerated for unrelated offenses. While in the custody of the
Department of Corrections, Plaintiff was seen on February 8, 2010 by a doctor at Northern State
Prison. During the course of the examination, the doctor asked Plaintiff about the amputation and
expressed surprise that the limb was amputated when Plaintiff was 14 years old. Plaintiff asserts
that after learning that the shooting occurred in 1993, the doctor "informed Plaintiff that UMDNJ
has level one trauma and they
and should have had the technology in 1993 to save his limb."
to
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
1
1
be ~~~~:.:.•:!, or
to state a
from a defendant who is immune
such
U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B), 191
To survive dismissal "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.' 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."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citation omitted). The plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
relief," and will be dismissed. Id. at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Fowler
21
I
11
III. DISCUSSION
was
on a
0
whom Plaintiff had the
Plaintiff does not assert
knowledge
Plaintiff's injuries or the
of
Rather, Plaintiff appears to
argue that equitable tolling should apply here simply because the conversation caused him to
question whether his leg could have been saved.
Federal courts look to state law to determine the limitations period for § 1983 actions.
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387-88, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) ("Section 1983
provides a federal cause of action, but in several respects relevant here federal law looks to the law
of the State in which the cause of action arose.
This is so for the length of the statute of
limitations[.]"). A complaint under § 1983 is "characterized as a personal injury claim and thus is
governed by the applicable state's statute of limitations for personal-injury claims." Dique v.
Police, 603 F .3d 181, 185 (3d
1
In
201 0) (citing Cito v.
1
I
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?