United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Cathy-Jo McKee, Plaintiff Pro Se.
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Cathy-Jo McKee seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Camden County Jail (“CCJ”) for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires courts to review complaints
prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis. Courts 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.
the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the
Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
respect to the factual allegations giving rise to her claims,
Plaintiff's Complaint states in its entirety: “I
was forced to sleep in a cell with 5 women and only 2 bunks.
I had to sleep on the floor.” Complaint § III(C).
Plaintiff states that these events occurred:
“5-23-2006[, ] and from May 20, 2011 - October 29,
2011.” Id. § III(B).
Plaintiff does not identify any injuries related to these
events. Id. § IV.
Plaintiff seeks “to be compensated for wrongful housing
at Camden County Jail . . . I had to sleep on the floor,
which is unhealthy living conditions. I am seeking the
highest compensation I can receive for this matter.”
Id. § V.
Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, as
First, the Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice as to
claims made against the CCJ because defendant is not a
“state actor” within the meaning of § 1983.
See Crawford v. McMillian, No. 16-3412, 2016 WL
6134846, at *2 (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 2016) (“[T]he prison
is not an entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.”) (citing Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d
991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)); Grabow v. Southern State Corr.
Facility, 726 F.Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J. 1989)
(correctional facility is not a “person” under
Second, Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of
limitations. “[P]laintiffs who file complaints subject
to dismissal should receive leave to amend unless amendment
would be inequitable under [§ 1915] or futile.”
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114
(3d Cir. 2002). This Court denies leave to amend at this time
as Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the statute of
limitations, which is governed by New Jersey's two-year
limitations period for personal injury. See Wilson v.
Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Dique v. N.J.
State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010). The
accrual date of a § 1983 action is determined by federal
law, however. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388
(2007); Montanez v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of
Corr., 773 F.3d 472, 480 (3d Cir. 2014). “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, 773 F.3d at 480 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff states that the events giving rise to the claims in
the Complaint occurred: “5-23-2006[, ] and from May 20,
2011 - October 29, 2011.” Complaint § III(B). The
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement would
have been immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of
detention in CCJ. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for
Plaintiff's claims expired in October 2013. As there are
no grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations,  the Complaint will be dismissed with
prejudice. 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
the reasons stated above, the Complaint is dismissed with