Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Farrish v. Camden County Corrections

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 12, 2018

TERRELL A. FARRISH, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONS, Defendant.

          Terrell A. Farrish, Plaintiff Pro Se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         1. 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 Entry 1.

         2. 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.

         3. 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).

         4. 28 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 forma pauperis.

         5. For 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. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).

         6. The 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.

         7. To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a claim[1], 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 added).

         8. Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated by CCC from May 21, 2014 to March 2016. Complaint § III.

         9. With 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).

         10. 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. § IV.

         11. As 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.

         Conditions of Confinement Claim For Monetary Damages, As ToOvercrowding During October 14, 2014 to March 2016 Confinements: Dismissed Without ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.