Russell v. Camden County Jail

          Gary D. Russell Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Gary D. Russell seeks to bring a civil rights complaint against Camden County Jail (“CCJ”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.

         28 U.S.C. 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 Section 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

         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

         Plaintiff's Complaint states in its entirety: “I was incarcerated and staff made me sleep on the floor[.] [T]he county jail was over crowded [sic] so I had to sleep on the floor. My back started to hurt after you sleep on the floor over time. It was other inmates as well had to sleep on the floor. A few people I know and some family members knew what happened to me when I was locked up.” Complaint § III(C).

         With respect to alleged injuries sustained from these purported events, Plaintiff claims: “I have back problems and my legs start to hurt cause [sic] of that. I have problems sleeping at night because my back and legs be [sic] in pain.” Id. § IV.

         Plaintiff states that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred “2004, 1/2007, 2/2010, 9/2012. During these dates, I was locked up.” Id. § III(B).

         Plaintiff “would like compensation for my pain and suffering. Finatually [sic] I have problems finding a job because of my injuries.” Id. § V.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         To survive sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim, a 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. ...