United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Dashawn Carrillo, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at
Northern State Prison, in Newark, New Jersey. He is
proceeding pro se with a civil rights Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated in
this Opinion, the Court will dismiss without prejudice
Plaintiffs excessive force claims and decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff s state law claims.
Court will construe the factual allegations of the Complaint
as true for the purpose of this Opinion. Plaintiff names
David Owen, Warden Karen Taylor, Sergeant E. Trout, and
Corrections Officer D. Russell as Defendants in this matter.
This case arises from Plaintiffs time as a pretrial detainee
at the Camden County Jail.
April 22, 2016, Plaintiff secured some legal writing paper
while some officers were escorting him to the showering
facilities. Upon discovering Plaintiffs paper, Defendant
Russell aggressively approached Plaintiff, despite Plaintiffs
indications of surrender. Defendant Trout then grabbed
Plaintiff by the head and neck and slammed him into the
ground. Thereafter, multiple officers appeared, thrust their
knees into Plaintiffs back and neck, and prevented Plaintiff
from breathing. Ultimately, the officers took Plaintiff into
the medical department.
medical department, Plaintiff asked an official to place him
in the mental health floor, in order to protect himself from
the officers at the jail. At some point or throughout this
time period, officials refused to treat Plaintiff s back and
neck pain from the incident.
after the incident, Defendant Russell filed an
"untruthful" disciplinary incident report and
criminal charges against Plaintiff, claiming that Plaintiff
threatened Defendant Russell with violence. For reasons that
are unclear, those charges resulted in dismissals.
January 31, 2019,  Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint,
raising excessive force claims, as well as state law claims
sounding in assault, battery, and defamation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
courts must review complaints in civil actions in which a
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). District courts may 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. See Id. According to the
Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
"a pleading that offers 'labels or conclusions'
or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.'" 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)).
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. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,
578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). "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 [alleged] misconduct."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Moreover, while courts
liberally construe pro se pleadings, "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
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights guaranteed under the United
States Constitution. To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a
plaintiff must allege two things: first, a violation of a
right under the Constitution, and second, that a
"person" acting under color of state law committed
the violation. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988); Piecknick v. Com. of Pa., 36 F.3d 1250,
1255-56 (3d. Cir. 1994)).
initial matter, the Court will address the statute of
limitations on § 1983 claims since it appears from the
face of the Complaint that Plaintiffs federal claims are
time-barred. "Although the running of the statute of
limitations is ordinarily an affirmative defense, where that
defense is obvious from the face of the complaint and no
development of the record is necessary, a court may dismiss a
time-barred complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C.