MICHAEL A. SHIPP, District Judge.
Plaintiff Horace White ("Plaintiff") brings this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Elda Sanchomora, Jeffrey Glover, Steven Stern, Janet Monroe, Susan Thomas, and Frank Hubbard's ("Defendants") motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff, through court-appointed counsel, filed opposition (ECF No. 57), and Defendants replied (ECF No. 58). The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is granted.
For the purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court views all facts alleged by Plaintiff as true and in the light most favorable to him. Following his acquittal by reason of insanity in a state court criminal matter, Plaintiff was involuntarily committed to Greystone Psychiatric Hospital ("GPH") in Morris Plains, New Jeresy, pursuant to a state court order under State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236 (1975). (Am. Compl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 46; Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 3, ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff alleges that in or about 2009, he was assaulted by another patient at GPH when they were left unattended by the GPH staff, even though they were deemed as requiring "one on one" observation at all times. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-15)
Plaintiff further alleges that, later in 2009, he was released from GPH to live in an apartment in Montclair, New Jersey, under the condition that he receive eighteen months of screening. (Id. at ¶ 17.) However, shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was recommitted to GPH, allegedly without justification. (Id. at ¶ 18.) In October of 2010, Plaintiff again was attacked by another patient. (Id. at ¶ 19.) This time, several named defendants intervened to quell the altercation. (Id.) After the defendants ended the altercation, they forcibly injected Plaintiff with antipsychotic medication over his objection, at which time he informed the defendants that he was allergic to the medication. (Id. at ¶ 20.) As a result of the forcible injection, Plaintiff suffered a server allergic reaction with "myosis, swelling of the feet and hands, and permanent bone discomfort and damage." (Id. at ¶ 22.) On December 7, 2012, Plaintiff was transferred to "Ann Klein Forensic Center, a more restrictive facility . . . without prior notice or any form of due process." (Id. at ¶ 24.) The Court construes the Amended Complaint as asserting failure-to-protect, inadequate medical services, wrongful confinement, and wrongful transfer claims.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant original complaint, dated April 3, 2013, on April 11, 2013. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Honorable Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J., granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and permitted the Complaint to proceed. (Order, Dec. 20, 2013, ECF No. 3.) The case was later reassigned to this Court. (Text Order, Mar. 10, 2015, ECF No. 21.) Subsequently, the Honorable Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J., granted Plaintiff's request for pro bono counsel, and appointed Carroll, McNulty & Kull, LLC, to represent Plaintiff. (Order, Mar. 31, 2015, ECF No. 22.)
Every complaint must comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only `give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a "defendant bears the burden of showing that no claim has been presented." Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005).
In addition, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996) ("PLRA"), provides that in civil actions in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, a district court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that" a claim is frivolous, 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff claims that since he is not mentally incapacitated, his current confinement is unconstitutional because he was recommitted without due process and justification. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, in the form of immediate release from custody, as well as compensatory damages. Plaintiff also alleges that his transfer without prior notice or any form of due process was unconstitutional.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for his alleged wrongful confinement and wrongful transfer, his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court stated,
Id. at 486-87 (footnote omitted). "[A] state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) — no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) — if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the confinement or its duration." Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005)).
When a plaintiff is challenging the wrongfulness of his involuntary civil commitment pursuant to a valid state court order, Heck is equally applicable because a finding for Plaintiff would necessarily render that confinement invalid. Banda, 164 F. App'x at 287 ("Banda's section 1983 action essentially alleged that he was involuntarily committed, in violation of his civil rights. . . [which is] not cognizable under section 1983 because a favorable outcome would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement.").
Defendants assert that Plaintiff is barred by the applicable statute of limitations from asserting his failure-to-protect and inadequate medical care claims, and the Court agrees. Federal courts look to state law to determine the limitations period for § 1983 actions. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387-88 (2007); Estate of Lagano v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 769 F.3d 850, 859 (3d Cir. 2014). Civil rights or constitutional tort claims are best characterized as personal injury actions and are governed by the applicable state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Lagano, 769 F.3d at 859. Accordingly, New Jersey's two-year limitations period on personal injury actions governs Plaintiff's claims here. Id. Under New Jersey law, an action for an injury caused by a wrongful act, neglect, or default must be commenced within two years of accrual of the cause of action. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2; Lagano, 769 F.3d at 859.
The statute of limitations defense is an affirmative defense that the defendants generally must plead and prove. See Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014). While a plaintiff is not required to plead that the claim has been brought within the statute of limitations, Stephens v. Clash, 796 F.3d 281, 288 (3d Cir. 2015), if the allegations of a complaint "show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); see Stephens, 796 F.3d at 288.
Here, it is apparent from the face of the Amended Complaint that Plaintiff's failure-to-protect and inadequate medical care claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The incidents that gave rise to Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claims occurred "[i]n or about 2009" and October of 2010. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19.) For the inadequate medical care claim, the incident giving rise to that claim also occurred in October of 2010. (Id. at ¶ 19.) As such, Plaintiff's limitations period for all of these claims expired, at the latest, in October of 2012. The Complaint in the instant matter, however, was filed on April 11, 2013, and the Complaint itself was dated April 3, 2013. (Compl. 11.) As such, these claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations has not expired on these claims, citing N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21, which provides that if a person:
N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21. Plaintiff contends that his statute of limitations did not start to run until counsel was appointed in the instant matter, because his "Krol status and continued commitment to GPH is indisputable evidence of his ongoing mental incapacity[.]" (Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 10.) In essence, Plaintiff asserts that by virtue of his placement in a mental institution under Krol, his legal claims — at least those to which N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21 applies — are perpetually tolled for the period he remains in the mental institution or until a court appoints legal counsel. As presented, Plaintiff's argument would not apply only to him, but to all individuals involuntarily committed pursuant to Krol. The Court can find no basis for that overreaching proposition.
For support, Plaintiff cites to the two seminal cases on the use of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21 for tolling purposes: Kyle v. Green Acres at Verona, Inc., 44 N.J. 100 (1965), and Todish v. Cigna Corp., 206 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 2000).
Todish likewise supports the Court's interpretation of the statute. In Todish, the plaintiff argued for tolling under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21, citing her history of mental difficulties. 206 F.3d at 305. The Third Circuit acknowledged that the Todish plaintiff had "a history of mental difficulties." Id. at 306. However, the Todish court found that simply suffering from mental difficulties, without a showing that those difficulties prevented plaintiff from understanding her legal rights, did not warrant the application of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21. Id. Instead, the Todish court relied on evidence showing that the plaintiff had been able to pursue her legal claims as proof that she had the ability to understand her legal rights and to institute legal action within the statute of limitations period. 206 F.3d at 306. As Plaintiff acknowledged, the Todish plaintiff offered evidence that she did not understand her legal rights and claims. Id. Nevertheless, the Third Circuit disregarded the evidence, finding that the applicability of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21 did not turn on the plaintiff's actual knowledge or understanding. Id. Rather, the court explained, "the lack of understanding that would render her `insane' must have derived from her mental illness and placed her at a level of understanding below that of the usual plaintiff, of whom we require diligence in discovering the legal wrong." Id. at 306-07.
Many plaintiffs, especially those appearing pro se, lack a degree of knowledge or understanding of their legal rights based on their lack of education and legal training. Some of them, like Plaintiff here, may also suffer from certain mental difficulties. However, absent a showing that the mental difficulties caused the lack of understanding of his legal rights, Plaintiff is not entitled to tolling under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21. Here, beyond his Krol status, Plaintiff makes no allegation that he possessed any mental impairment that rendered him incapable of understanding and pursuing his legal claims. Instead, the pleadings, and even Plaintiff's own allegations in the Amended Complaint, contradict his claim of mental incapacity. To begin, a comparison of the initial Complaint, filed by Plaintiff himself, and the Amended Complaint, filed by appointed counsel, shows that the claims raised in both complaints are materially the same. (Compare Compl. 6-10, with Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26-47.) While the Court recognizes and appreciates counsel's effort to streamline Plaintiff's claims in the Amended Complaint, the fact that the two complaints are materially similar indicates that Plaintiff, at least at the time he filed the original Complaint, had a good understanding of his legal claims. Indeed, Judge Bongiovanni acknowledged this in her order, finding Plaintiff's submissions articulate. Although Judge Bongiovanni appointed counsel based on a physician's report that Plaintiff suffered from bipolar disorder, the physician's report concerned treatment that occurred after September 24, 2014, well after the Complaint had been filed. Although the report was certainly relevant to Judge Bongiovanni's decision to appoint pro bono counsel, it has no bearing on whether tolling should be granted for Plaintiff's claims.
Furthermore, as the Court pointed out above, there are no additional allegations showing that based on some extraordinary circumstance, Plaintiff lacked the same legal understanding, or the capacity to understand, at the time the alleged violations occurred. Therefore, based on the facts in front of this Court, this is not a case where Plaintiff lost his mental capacity, perhaps due to the alleged violations, which he then later regained when filing the Complaint. Based on the allegations in the pleadings, he was an involuntarily committed individual under Krol both at the time of the alleged violations and at the time the Complaint was filed, so there was no demonstrated change in mental capacity. As such, Plaintiff's Krol status, alone, has little relevance to whether he suffered from a mental disability that entitles him to tolling under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21.
Furthermore, one of Plaintiff's allegations in the Amended Complaint contradicts his assertion of mental incapacity solely based on his Krol status. In support of his wrongful confinement claim for his recommitment in 2009, Plaintiff alleges that the recommitment was unconstitutional because he "is not mentally incapacitated and is fit to manage his own affairs." (Am. Compl. 8 (emphasis added).) Hence, although Plaintiff has been unquestionably detained under Krol since his recommitment, Plaintiff himself acknowledges that such commitment is not necessarily indicative of his mental capacity. As Todish noted, a plaintiff's ability to manage her own affairs is suggestive of her mental awareness to understand her legal rights. 206 F.3d at 306. Plaintiff cannot allege, on the one hand, that his confinement is unconstitutional because he is not mentally incapacitated, but argue, on the other hand, that he is mentally disabled for the purposes of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21. Cf. Cummings v. Crumb, 347 F. App'x 725, 727 (3d Cir. 2009) (finding that plaintiff's "changing and contradictory allegations" do not establish that he exhausted administrative remedies as alleged); Bailey-El v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 246 F. App'x 105, 109 (3d Cir. 2007) ("The allegations against Watts are wholly speculative as the Complaint asserts contradictory allegations that Watts's actions were both knowing and intentional and, at the same time, unknowing and grossly negligent."). Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiff's argument for the application of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21, and finds that his failure-to-protect and inadequate medical care claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. Likewise, Plaintiff's state law claims of "breach of duty" for injuries he suffered from the assault and forced medication (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 30-33) are subject to the same two-year statute of limitations for personal injury, so the Court finds that they are similarly time-barred. The Court, however, dismisses these claims without prejudice to the extent that Plaintiff can demonstrate his mental incapacity. Even though this dismissal is without prejudice, the Court is not granting leave to amend as Plaintiff has not requested such relief, nor asserted sufficient facts in the briefing before the Court to determine that amendment would not be futile. If Plaintiff wishes to reopen this case, he may file an appropriate motion to amend his complaint that cures the defects identified in this opinion.
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion is GRANTED.
