RICCOBENE v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECITONAL FACILITY, 1:16-cv-07457

Plaintiff Jana Riccobene, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Camden County Correctional Facility (CCCF) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Alleged facts: during periods of detention in 2003 and 2005 (including Aug. 30–Dec. 24, 2005), Riccobene was made to sleep on the floor and suffered a sore back and MRSA-related open sores.
The Court performed sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether the complaint must be dismissed as frivolous, malicious, time-barred, or for failure to state a claim.
Court dismissed the action because CCCF is not a proper § 1983 defendant (not a state actor/person under § 1983).
The Court also concluded the claims are time-barred under New Jersey’s two-year personal-injury statute, accrual no later than Dec. 24, 2005, and no equitable tolling applies; dismissal is with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CCCF is a proper § 1983 defendant (state actor/person)	Riccobene seeks damages from CCCF under § 1983 for conditions of confinement	CCCF is not a "person" or state actor for § 1983 purposes	Court: CCCF is not a state actor/person; claims against it dismissed with prejudice
Whether the complaint states a plausible § 1983 conditions-of-confinement claim	Conditions (sleeping on floor, MRSA injuries) allegedly violated constitutional rights	Defendant argues structural/pleading defects and non‑actionability as sued	Court: Pleading defects and improper defendant; dismissal for failure to state a claim
Whether the claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations	Riccobene alleges injuries in 2003 and 2005 and filed suit in 2016	Defendant asserts New Jersey two-year statute applies and accrual was at detention; no tolling	Court: Claims accrued during detention (no later than Dec. 24, 2005); limitations expired; no equitable tolling; dismissal with prejudice
Whether leave to amend should be granted	Plaintiff sought to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis; might amend to cure defects	Defendant relies on clear statute-of-limitations bar and non‑proper defendant	Court: Denied leave to amend as amendment would be futile because of statute-of-limitations and improper defendant

Fowler v. UPMS Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (pleading standard for plausibility)
Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303 (definition of plausibility and reasonable inference)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (labels-and-conclusions / pleading standard)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Twombly pleading standard)
Grabow v. Southern State Corr. Facility, 726 F. Supp. 537 (D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility not a § 1983 person)
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (leave to amend presumption and futility analysis)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (accrual rule for § 1983 actions)
Montanez v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr., 773 F.3d 472 (accrual and limitations principles in § 1983 cases)
Ostuni v. Wa Wa's Mart, [citation="532 F. App'x 110"] (affirming sua sponte dismissal where limitations are obvious on face of complaint)