United States District Court, D. New Jersey
COREEM J. SPAULDING, Plaintiff,
CITY OF CAMDEN, Defendant.
J. Spaulding Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge
Coreem J. Spaulding seeks to bring a civil rights complaint
against the City of Camden (“Camden”) and Camden
County Jail (“CCJ”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of
confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1, at 1 and §
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 went to county
jail and slept on floor due to over crowded [sic]. 9
to 5 men to a cell.” Complaint § III(C).
respect to purported injuries in connection with the alleged
events, Plaintiff states: “I had back problems but
didn't see nurse for it until I went to prison.”
Id. § IV.
states that the alleged events giving rise to his claims
occurred: “March 2005, Sep 2007, Dec 2010.”
Id. § III(B).
respect to relief that Plaintiff requests as to his claims,
he states: “I want the Court to compensate me and I
want $10, 000.” 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