United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Andre
Johnson, Plaintiff Pro Se
OPINION
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Judge
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Andre Johnson seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Camden County
Correctional Facility (“CCCF”). 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, the Court will
dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
alleges that he was confined in the CCCF for 25 months
beginning on July 18, 2007. Complaint § III. He states:
“I was in the facility as a prisoner for 25 months and
I slept on the floor for a year straight, from July 2007 to
July 2008. My last 13 months I slept on the floor on and off
due to being moved from room to room by the officers.”
Id.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Section
1915(e)(2) requires a court to review complaints prior to
service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis. The Court 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.
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). “[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
Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages from CCCF for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Primarily, the
complaint must be dismissed as the CCCF is not a “state
actor” within the meaning of § 1983. See
Crawford v. McMillian, 660 F. App'x 113, 116 (3d
Cir. 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)).
Accordingly, the claims against CCCF must be dismissed with
prejudice.
Generally,
“plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal
under [§ 1915] should receive leave to amend unless
amendment would be inequitable 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.[1] 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 he was detained at
CCCF from 2007 to 2009. The allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement at CCCF would have been immediately
apparent to Plaintiff at the time of his detention;
therefore, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff's
claims expired, at the latest, in 2011. As there are no
grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations,
[2] the
complaint will be dismissed with ...