Source: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170208e49
Timestamp: 2017-08-20 17:20:51
Document Index: 280654400

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', 'art, 532', '§ 28', '§ 1915', 'art, 532']

NOCK v. CAMDEN COUNTY COR | Civil Action No. 16... | Leagle.com
NOCK v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Civil Action No. 16-cv-06934 (JBS-AMD).
BEVERLY NOCK, Plaintiff, v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant.
BEVERLY NOCK, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Plaintiff Beverly Nock seeks to bring a civil rights complaint against Camden County Correctional Facility ("CCCF") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1.
Plaintiff's Complaint states: "When I was in Camden County Correctional Facility I had to sleep on the floor under the toilet. It was so crowded my head was jammed underneath the toilet bowl. I think that was a disgrace. I was on a bare floor with nothing[.] No blanket or anything." Complaint § III(C).
Plaintiff states that the alleged events giving rise to these claims occurred: "November 2005." Id. § III(B).
Plaintiff does not identify or otherwise describe any alleged injuries arising from these claims. Id. § IV.
Plaintiff does not identify or otherwise describe any relief requested in connection with these claims. Id. § V.
Plaintiff asserts claims against CCCF for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Primarily, the Complaint must be dismissed as CCCF is not a "state actor" within the meaning of § 1983. See, e.g., Grabow v. Southern State Corr. Facility, 726 F.Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility is not a "person" under § 1983). Accordingly, the claims against CCCF must be dismissed with prejudice.
Furthermore, "plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal should receive leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable under [§ 1915] or futile." Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). This Court denies leave to amend at this time as Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, which is governed by New Jersey's two-year limitations period for personal injury.1 See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010). The accrual date of a § 1983 action is determined by federal law, however. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007); Montanez v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr., 773 F.3d 472, 480 (3d Cir. 2014). "Under federal law, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury upon which the action is based." Montanez, 773 F.3d at 480 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff states that the alleged events giving rise to her claims occurred: "November 2005." Complaint § III(B). The allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement at CCCF would have been immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of detention. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff's claims expired in November 2007. As there are no grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations,2 the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Ostuni v. Wa Wa's Mart, 532 F. App'x 110, 112 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal with prejudice due to expiration of statute of limitations).
1. "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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim." Ostuni v. Wa Wa's Mart, 532 F. App'x 110, 111-12 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam).