MANNING v. ST. PAUL et al

Filing 46

OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Cox Arleo on 6/5/2024. (jd, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DOUGLAS MANNING,

Civil Action No. 20-14240 (MCA)

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM

V.

ST. PAUL, et al,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Douglass Manning ("Plaintiff) was previously incarcerated at East Jersey State
Prison.1 This matter has been opened to the Court by Plaintiffs filing of a third amended
complaint. ECF No. 40. For the reasons expressed herein, the Court dismisses the Complaint
pursuant to its screening authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, denies further leave to amend, and

directs the Clerk of the Court to close this case.
Plaintiff filed his original complaint on or about September 9,2020, and sought to proceed
in forma paupens. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff s application
to proceed in forma pauperis, and Plaintiff subsequently paid the filing fee. See ECF No. 3.
Plaintiffs original complaint alleged that corrections officers assaulted him on December
3, 2007 at Northern State Prison. ECF No, 1, Complaint at 4-6. On June 29, 2021, the Court
dismissed Plaintiffs original complaint pursuant to its screening authority under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A as untimely under the two-year limitations period for civil rights claims and provided
Plaintiff with leave to amend. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff subsequently submitted an amended and
second amended complaint. ECF Nos. 6, 11. On November 22, 2022, the Court dismissed

* It appears that Plaintiff was released from prison after he filed his Third Amended Complaint.
See ECF No. 44.

1

Plaintiffs amended and second amended complaints without prejudice as untimely under the twoyear limitations period for civil rights claims and once again permitted Plaintiff to move to reopen
this matter and submit a third amended complaint if he could allege facts in support of equitable
tolling.
After the Court dismissed the amended and second amended complaints under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, it received Plaintiffs request to reopen this matter. ECF No. 15. That request was
followed by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP application"), a motion for pro bono
counsel) and a notice of motion seeking equitable relief. See ECF Nos. 16, 18,19. Plaintiffs JFP
application also included a document titled "Complaint," which alleged that the assault on
December 3, 2007, violated the New Jersey Civil Rights Act ("NJCRA"), ^ECFNo. 16-2. The
complaint attached to Plaintiffs IFP application did not provide facts in support of equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations.
On January 9, 2023, while his motions were still pending, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. ECF No. 27. On April 2, 2023, the Third Circuit
dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction,2 noting that Plaintiff had filed a motion to
reopen, as permitted by this Court. See ECF No. 35.

Meanwhile, on March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a new complaint arising from the same
assault on December 3, 2007.3 See Civ. No. 23-1623. That complaint also did not provide facts

in support of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. See id

2 It appears that Plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court denied on October
2, 2023, and a petition for rehearing, the Supreme Court denied on January 8,2024. See App, No,
23-1052, Dkt.Nos. 19-20.

3 That matter was also assigned to the undersigned. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma
panperis in that action is deficient.

2

On July 31, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiffs motion to reopen this matter and provided
Plaintiff with 30 days to submit a third amended complaint that provides facts in support of
equitable tolling.4 ECF No. 40.
On August 8,2023, Plaintiff submitted a third amended complaint, but that Complaint does
not include facts supporting equitable tolling. See ECF No. 40. Moreover, the third amended
complaint lists the Defendants and Plaintiffs injuries but does not include any facts about the
alleged constitutional violations. The Court has provided several opportunities for Plaintiff to
amend his complaint to provide facts in support of equitable tolling, and he has failed to do so.
The Court finds that further amendment would be futile, as the claims set forth in the complaint
and amended complaints occurred in the 2007-2008 timeframe and are plainly time barred. The
Court dismisses the third amended complaint pursuant to its screening authority under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A for failure to state a claim for relief, denies further leave to amend, and directs the Clerk
of the Court to close this case accordingly. An appropriate Order follows.

Made&e ¥ox Arleo, District Judge
United States District Court

4 The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs IFP application because he already paid the filing
fee. The Court also denied without prejudice Plaintiffs request for pro bono counsel because the
claims asserted in this action are time barred, and Plaintiff did not submit any facts supporting
equitable tolling as directed by the Court in its prior Orders. Finally, the Court denied Plaintiffs
notice of motion for equitable relief as improperly filed.