Timothy McCargo v. Camden County Jail
693 F. App'x 164
3rd Cir.2017Background
- McCargo, a pro se plaintiff, sued Camden County Jail seeking $50,000 for injuries and mistreatment while housed in a shared cell during Winter 2004, alleging exposure to others vomiting on him, untreated medical issues (a boil, mouth infection, missed asthma and blood-pressure meds), bug bites, and back pain from sleeping on a cold floor.
- He named Camden County Jail as the sole defendant and sought to proceed in forma pauperis; the District Court granted IFP status and reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- The District Court construed the complaint as a § 1983 conditions-of-confinement claim and dismissed it for failure to state a claim and as time-barred by the statute of limitations, dismissing with prejudice and without leave to amend.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, finding McCargo failed to allege any defendant had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm or acted with deliberate indifference.
- The court also held amendment would be futile because § 1983 claims accrue under federal law and New Jersey’s two-year statute of limitations applied; McCargo’s claims accrued in 2004 but were filed in 2016, well beyond the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states an Eighth Amendment/§ 1983 conditions-of-confinement claim | McCargo alleged serious medical neglect and unsafe cell conditions causing ongoing pain and suffering | Jail (and District Court) argued allegations do not show any official had subjective awareness or acted with deliberate indifference | Dismissed: allegations insufficient to show subjective awareness or deliberate indifference (Farmer standard) |
| Whether Monell or individual liability could be established | McCargo named the jail and referenced two officers but did not plead facts showing policy or supervisory causation | Defendants argued no adequate factual allegations against individuals or policy makers | Dismissed: court noted lack of factual allegations; point moot given statute-of-limitations bar |
| Whether dismissal should be with leave to amend | McCargo sought relief and could potentially add defendants/facts | District Court found amendment futile due to time bar | Affirmed: amendment would be futile because claims are time-barred |
| Whether the § 1983 claims are time-barred | McCargo filed in 2016 for events in 2004; he argued in forma pauperis status and possible tolling while incarcerated | Defendants argued New Jersey’s two-year statute governs; accrual under federal law; no tolling saves the claim | Held: accrual in 2004; New Jersey two-year statute applies; claim untimely and not tolled — dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (establishes deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness of risk)
- Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp., 946 F.2d 1017 (recognizes deliberate or reckless indifference standard above negligence for detainee protection)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (futility of amendment standard)
- Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181 (§ 1983 characterized as personal-injury claim governed by state statute of limitations)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (federal law controls accrual of § 1983 claims)
- Cito v. Bridgewater Twp. Police Dep’t, 892 F.2d 23 (applies state limitations period to § 1983 claims)