United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MICHAEL L. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff,
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; WARDEN DAVID OWENS; FREEHOLDERS, Defendants.
Michael L. Saunders, Plaintiff Pro Se.
B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court is in receipt of a letter from Plaintiff Michael
Saunders asking the Court not to dismiss his complaint for
failure to state a claim. Letter, Docket Entry 12. The Court
will interpret this as a motion for reconsideration and deny
Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 11, 2016 alleging he
was detained in the Camden County Correctional Facility
(“CCCF”) in 2005, 2009, and 2012, “each
time for several months before being transferred to state
prison.” Complaint § III. He alleged that he had
to sleep on the floor of the cells during each of these
periods of incarceration due to there being three other
inmates in there with him at the time. Id. He
claimed that the units were so crowded, he often had to stand
to eat meals. Id.
further alleged that the shower area was dirty, law library
time was limited, and that the kitchen was infested with
mice. He stated that staph infections and boils were common.
Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) because Plaintiff was proceeding in forma
pauperis. As the Court explained in its opinion, §
1915 requires the Court to 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.
Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim
because it was clear on the complaint's face that
Plaintiff's claims arose more than two years before he
filed his complaint.
Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court asking it to keep his
case open because he “worked several days &
hours” to prepare his complaint and he “filled
out the form to the best of [his] ability.” Letter at
Local Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion for
reargument or reconsideration of “matter[s] or
controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or
Magistrate Judge has overlooked ....” Local Civ. R.
7.1(i). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is a
matter within the Court's discretion, but it should only
be granted where such facts or legal authority were indeed
presented but overlooked. See DeLong v. Raymond Int'l
Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1140 (3d Cir. 1980), overruled
on other grounds by Croker v. Boeing Co., 662 F.2d 975
(3d Cir. 1981); see also Williams v. Sullivan, 818
F.Supp. 92, 93 (D.N.J. 1993).
prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must
show: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court ... [rendered the judgment in
question]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” U.S. ex
rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837,
848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Max's Seafood
Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). The standard of review involved in
a motion for reconsideration is high and relief is to be
granted sparingly. United States v. Jones, 158
F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994).
Court will deny the request to reinstate the complaint. The
complaint was dismissed because Plaintiff filed it too late.
According to Plaintiff, he was incarcerated in CCCF in 2005,
2009, and 2012. Claims under § 1983 must be filed in
state or federal court within two years of the date of the
claim's accrual, meaning the date when
“‘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)).
Plaintiff would have known about the allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the time he was
in CCCF. See McCargo v. Camden Cty. Jail, 693
Fed.Appx. 164, 166 (3d Cir. 2017) (“His claims accrued
as he endured the circumstances while confined.”).
Therefore, Plaintiff had until 2014 at the latest to file his
§ 1983 complaint.
Plaintiff did not file his complaint in this Court until
October 11, 2016, two years after the time for filing a
§ 1983 complaint expired. Nothing in Plaintiff's
letter warrants extending the statute of limitations. See ...