United States District Court, D. New Jersey
TERRELL A. FARRISH, Plaintiff,
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONS, Defendant.
Terrell A. Farrish, Plaintiff Pro Se
B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Terrell A. Farrish seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden
County Corrections (“CCC”). Complaint, Docket
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 14, 2016.
Id. This Court administratively terminated the case
on October 20, 2016, pending Plaintiff's submission of
either the filing fee and administrative fees or a complete
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application.
Docket Entry 2. Pursuant to this Court's December 27,
2016, Plaintiff had until January 26, 2017 to “notify
the Court in writing” that he “wishe[d] to reopen
this case” by submitting either a complete IFP
application with certified six-month prison account statement
or a $400 filing fee. Id. Plaintiff did not submit
anything to the Clerk of this Court on or prior to the
January 26, 2017 deadline. Instead, on June 28, 2018, the
Clerk of this Court received Plaintiff's IFP application
dated June 15, 2018.
Plaintiff's proposed IFP application is, technically,
untimely and would therefore fail to re-open this case
following the October 20, 2016 administrative termination.
The fact that Plaintiff's June 28, 2018 IFP submission is
nearly one and a half years late further causes this Court to
question whether Plaintiff takes seriously his obligations
with respect to prosecuting his claims. Nevertheless, given
the fact that this Court must construe pro se
filings liberally, the Court will enlarge Plaintiff's
time and deem his submission (Docket Entry 3) timely. Leave
to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is
therefore authorized. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The
Clerk of this Court will be directed to re-open this case,
and the Complaint will now be subjected to sua
sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires courts to review complaints
prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis. Courts 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 the Court is allowing Plaintiff to proceed in
the reasons set forth below, the Court will: (a) dismiss the
Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim as
to conditions of confinement regarding incarcerations during
the period October 14, 2014 - March 2016; and (b) dismiss the
Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim as to
conditions of confinement regarding incarcerations during the
period May 21, 2014 - October 13, 2014, as these claims are
barred by the statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. §
present Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to support
a reasonable inference that a constitutional violation has
occurred in order to survive this Court's review under
§ 1915. Even accepting the statements in Plaintiff's
Complaint as true for screening purposes only, there is not
enough factual support for the Court to infer a
constitutional violation has occurred.
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).
“[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)). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are
liberally construed, “pro se litigants still
must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a
claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704
F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (emphasis
Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated by CCC from May
21, 2014 to March 2016. Complaint § III.
respect to factual allegations giving rise to his claims,
Plaintiff states: “I was sleeping on the floor under
the toilet bowl for months due to four people in one
cell.” Complaint § III(C).
Plaintiff contends that he has “minor back pain at
night and major when getting up in the morning” as a
result of these events during incarceration. Id.
to requested relief, Plaintiff seeks “a reasonable
amount of monetary[, ] $5, 000 or $4, 000.”
Id. § V. Plaintiff also “would like the
courts to bring a stop to this for the future inmates because
this is a problem.” Id.
of Confinement Claim For Monetary Damages, As
ToOvercrowding During October 14,
2014 to March 2016 Confinements: Dismissed Without ...