Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Guyton v. Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

August 9, 2019

ZAIYAIR ALI CULBRETH GUYTON, Plaintiff,
v.
CURRAN-FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM

          MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.

         Plaintiff Zaiyair Ali Culbreth Guyton, who is representing himself (proceeding pro se) brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility (“CFCF”). Guyton seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Guyton leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         I. FACTS

         The Court understands Guyton to be bringing constitutional claims based on the conditions at CFCF, where Guyton was incarcerated from November 21, 2014 through March 24, 2016. Guyton alleges that CFCF was overcrowded, so he “was forced to live in inhumane conditions where 3 men were forced to live in one cell for almost 4 months straight at one point.” (Compl. at 7.)[1] Guyton seeks monetary damages for depression, paranoia, “small forms of P.T.S.D.” and other “mental and emotional damages.” (Id. at 8.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Court grants Guyton leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is not capable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). The Court may also consider matters of public record. Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). Additionally, the Court may dismiss claims based on an affirmative defense if the affirmative defense is obvious from the face of the complaint. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006); cf. Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 459 (3d Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by, Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015). As Guyton is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Guyton's claims are time-barred. Pennsylvania's two-year limitations period applies to Guyton's § 1983 claims. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524; Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007). The limitations period began to run from the time Guyton “knew or should have known of the injury upon which [his] action is based.” Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc. v. City of Phila., 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998).

         Guyton is bringing claims based on conditions in which he was held from November 21, 2014 through March 24, 2016. However, he did not file this lawsuit until August 6, 2019, more than two years after his claims accrued. Guyton knew or should have known of the conditions in which he was incarcerated at the time he was held in those conditions. Accordingly, Guyton's claims are time barred.[2]

         IV. CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Guyton will not be given leave to amend because amendment would be futile. An appropriate Order follows.

---------

Notes:

[1] The Court adopts the pagination assigned to the Complaint by the CM-ECF docketing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.