United States District Court, D. New Jersey
GARY D. RUSSELL, Plaintiff,
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.
D. Russell Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge
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.
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
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).
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 §
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.
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).
“would like compensation for my pain and suffering.
Finatually [sic] I have problems finding a job
because of my injuries.” Id. § V.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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