Source: https://casetext.com/case/ward-v-hudson-cnty-dept-of-corr
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:58:52+00:00

Document:
Ward v. Hudson Cnty. Dep&apos;t of Corr.
Wardv.Hudson Cnty. Dep&apos;t of Corr.
CHARLES WARD, Plaintiff, v. HUDSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff, Charles Ward, then incarcerated at South Wood State Prison ("SWSP"), filed a Complaint against The Hudson County Department of Corrections ("Hudson County DOC"), CFG Health Systems ("CFG"), and employees of Hudson County DOC and CFG, alleging that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by refusing treat his ear infections, hearing loss, and vertigo and for refusing to provide him with hearing aids. Plaintiff additionally alleges that a senior counselor at Hudson County Correctional Center retaliated against Plaintiff for his filing of a different lawsuit by failing to process his grievances, deleting data from an electronic Kiosk, refusing to turn over medical records requested by Plaintiff, and acting as a "liaison" for the county attorney assigned to Plaintiff's other lawsuit. The Court previously granted Plaintiff application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). At this time, the Court must review the Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A 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. As explained below, Plaintiff acknowledges in the letter accompanying his Complaint that his claim are time barred, and he offers no facts to warrant tolling of the two-year statute of limitations. As such the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint as untimely.
Pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, the Court will assume for purposes of this Opinion only that Plaintiff mailed his Complaint on January 21, 2015.
Under the PLRA, district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts 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.
Here, Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. 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 Atlantlc Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To 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).
"The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)." Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App'x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 F. App'x 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)); Courteau v. United States, 287 F. App'x 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, based on a time-bar, where "the time alleged in the statement of a claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations." Lasane v. Corzine, No. CIV.A. 08-4656 MLC, 2008 WL 4534078, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2008) citing Bethel v. Jendoco Constr. Corp., 570 F .2d 1168, 1174 (3d Cir. 1978)). Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that may be waived by a defendant, the Court may dismiss sua sponte a pro se civil rights claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) where untimeliness is apparent from the complaint. See Hunterson v. Disabato, 244 F. App'x. 455, 457 (3d Cir. 2007); Johnstone v. United States, 980 F. Supp. 148 (E.D. Pa. 1997); Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007) (if allegations of prisoner civil rights complaint establish relief is barred by affirmative defense, such as statute of limitations or exhaustion requirement, it may be dismissed for failure to state claim); see also Hall v. Minner, 411 F. App'x 443, 445 (3d Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of prisoner's claims under the ADA where statute of limitations defense apparent from the face of the Complaint). The requirement that federal courts review and dismiss any complaint that fails to state a claim, contained in both 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (which governs civil actions in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (which governs actions brought as to prison conditions), parallels the provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Civil rights claims are best characterized as personal injury actions and are governed by the applicable state's statute of limitations. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985). Likewise, "the statute of limitations applicable to claims under Title II of the ADA ... is the statute of limitations for personal injury actions in the state in which the trial court sits." Disabled in Action v. SEPTA, 539 F.3d 199, 208 (3d Cir. 2008); see also Muhammad v. Dep't of Corr., 645 F. Supp. 2d 299, 309 (D.N.J. 2008), aff'd sub nom., Muhammad v. NJ Dep't of Corr., 396 F. App'x 789 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing McGrogan v. Till, 327 N.J. Super. 595, 603 (App. Div. 2000) ("A medical-malpractice action ... is governed by the two-year [limitations] period.")). Here, New Jersey's two-year limitations period on personal injury actions, N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-2, governs Plaintiff's claims. See Montgomery v. DeSimone, 159 F.3d 120, 126 & n. 4 (3d Cir. 1998); Cito v. Bridgewater Twp. Police Dep't, 892 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir. 1989). Under N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-2, an action for an injury to the person caused by a wrongful act, neglect, or default must be commenced within two years of accrual of the cause of action. Cito, 892 F.2d at 25; accord Brown v. Foley, 810 F.2d 55, 56 (3d Cir. 1987).
New Jersey law permits "statutory tolling" under limited circumstances. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-21 (detailing tolling due to minority or insanity); N.J.S.A. § 2A 14-22 (detailing tolling due to nonresidency of persons liable). New Jersey law also permits "equitable tolling" where "the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass," or where a plaintiff has "in some extraordinary way" been prevented from asserting rights, or has timely asserted rights mistakenly either by defective pleading or in the wrong forum. See Freeman v. State, 347 N.J. Super. 11, 31 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 172 N.J. 178 (2002). "However, absent a showing of intentional inducement or trickery by a defendant, the doctrine of equitable tolling should be applied sparingly and only in the rare situation where it is demanded by sound legal principles as well as the interests of justice." Id. When state tolling rules contradict federal law or policy, federal courts can turn to federal tolling doctrine. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 370 (3d Cir. 2000). Under federal law, equitable tolling is appropriate in three general scenarios: (1) where a defendant actively misleads a plaintiff with respect to her cause of action; (2) where the plaintiff has been prevented from asserting her claim as a result of other extraordinary circumstances; or (3) where the plaintiff asserts her claims in a timely manner but has done so in the wrong forum. Id. n. 9.
Here, the Court need not determine whether Plaintiff states any claims for relief against any of the Defendants because Plaintiff acknowledges in the letter attached to his Complaint that the allegations in his Complaint are time barred. Indeed, the Court's own review of Plaintiff's Complaint confirms that conduct alleged occurred outside the two-year statute of limitations, and Plaintiff has provided no facts or extraordinary circumstances in his Complaint that would permit statutory or equitable tolling under either New Jersey or federal law. Plaintiff states only that he has "experienced several delays caused by my incarceration in South Woods State Prison, which are the direct and proximate causes for the missed filing date on October 2, 2014." The Court finds this vague statement insufficient to warrant equitable tolling, and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint as time-barred. To the extent Plaintiff has any valid basis for tolling, he may move to reopen the case within 30 days and provide factual support for his tolling arguments.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1997
 § 1915
 § 1997
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1997
 v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 § 1997
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 § 2
 § 2
 v. 
 v.