United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Porter, IV, Plaintiff Pro Se
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE, District Judge.
Elwood Porter, IV seeks to bring a civil rights Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden County
Correction Facility (“CCCF”) for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket
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, 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 alleges that Plaintiff was “made to sleep on
ground in very unsanitary living conditions. Sleeping next to
toilet due to overcrowding of the facility” during
“December 2012.” Complaint §§
III(B)-(C). Plaintiff sustained “a boil due to the
dirty conditions.” Id. § IV. Plaintiff
seeks relief of “monetary compensation.”
Id. § V.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
1915(e)(2) requires a court to review complaints prior to
service of the summons and complaint 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
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) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678). “[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
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff experienced unconstitutional
conditions of confinement while incarcerated in
“December 2012.” Complaint § III(B). Civil
rights claims under § 1983 are governed by New
Jersey's limitations period for personal injury and must
be brought within two years of the claim's accrual.
See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985);
Dique v. New Jersey State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185
(3d Cir. 2010). “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 v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr., 773
F.3d 472, 480 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Kach v. Hose,
589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009)).
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement, namely
the purported overcrowding and sleeping conditions in cells,
would have been immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time
of detention; therefore, the statute of limitations for
Plaintiff's claims expired in December 2014 at the
latest, well before this Complaint was filed in 2016.
Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit too late. Although the Court
may toll, or extend, the statute of limitations in the
interests of justice, certain circumstances must be present
before it can do so. Tolling is not warranted in this case
because the state has not “actively misled”
Plaintiff as to the existence of Plaintiff's cause of
action, there are no extraordinary circumstances that
prevented Plaintiff from filing the claim, and there is
nothing to indicate Plaintiff filed the claim on time but in
the wrong forum. See Omar v. Blackman, 590 F.
App'x 162, 166 (3d Cir. 2014).
is clear from the face of the Complaint that more than two
years have passed since Plaintiff's claims accrued, the
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, meaning Plaintiff may
not file an amended complaint concerning the events of
“December 2012.” Complaint § III(B).
Ostuni v. Wa Wa's Mart, 532 F. App'x 110,
112 (3d ...