Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0075-15T2
01-06-2017
SHARIF ST. CLAIRE, a/k/a SHARIF JAMES ST. CLAIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Respondent.
Sharif St. Claire, appellant pro se. Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Shana B. Bellin, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-2510-15. Sharif St. Claire, appellant pro se. Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Shana B. Bellin, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff, Sharif St. Claire, appeals from a July 10, 2015 order dismissing his complaint for failure to file within the statute of limitations pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. We affirm.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 10, 2015, against the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) for alleged abuse and mistreatment stemming from a July 2012 incident while he was housed at Trenton State Prison. Plaintiff alleges the DOC refused to provide him his medication, refused to allow him to speak with a psychiatrist, deprived him of food and water, and assaulted him. Plaintiff alleges he suffered a brain blood clot as a result of dehydration and required surgery. According to plaintiff's complaint, this mistreatment and subsequent surgery occurred in July 2012, but the complaint was not filed until April 10, 2015. Moreover, the record contains no evidence of a notice of tort claim relating to any such incident.
On June 26, 2015, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint because plaintiff had not filed a notice of claim within one year of the alleged incident as required. Plaintiff objected, arguing, because of his mental condition, the statute of limitations must be tolled. On July 10, 2015, the trial judge entered an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because plaintiff's failure to timely file the complaint, as provided by the statute of limitations set forth in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, forever barred his claim. This appeal followed.
Public entities are provided immunity for negligence except as otherwise provided by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. N.J.S.A. 59:2-1. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 states a claimant will be forever barred from recovering against a public entity if that claimant failed to file the claim within ninety days of the accrual of claim, two years has passed since the accrual of the claim, or the claimant entered in to a settlement agreement with respect to that claim. Additionally, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 states "[n]othing in this section shall prohibit a minor or a person who is mentally incapacitated from commencing an action under this act within the time limitations contained herein, after reaching majority or returning to mental capacity."
When determining whether a notice of claim was timely filed under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, "a sequential analysis must be undertaken." Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 118 (2000). First, it must be determined when the claim accrued. Ibid. The date of accrual has been found to be the date of the alleged injury. See Iaconianni v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 236 N.J. Super. 294, 298 (App. Div. 1989), cert. denied, 121 N.J. 592 (1990). Once the date of accrual has been determined, the second task is to determine whether notice of that claim was filed within ninety days. Beauchamp, supra, 164 N.J. at 118. If the claim was not filed within ninety days, the third task is to determine whether there were extraordinary circumstances which would justify a late filing. Id. at 118-19. A late filing must be made within one year after the accrual of the claim. N.J.S.A. 59:8-9.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 10, 2015, based upon an alleged incident that occurred in July of 2012. Under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, plaintiff would have had to file his notice of claim within ninety days of the accrual of the claim. The DOC submitted a certification from the Supervisor of Claims, Department of Treasury, who is responsible for receiving and processing notice of claims against the State and its employees under N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 to -11. The Supervisor certified her office never received a notice of claim from plaintiff within a one-year period of July 2012. Plaintiff filed no notice of claim within ninety days of the accrual of the claim nor did he file a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, and therefore, he is forever barred from bringing suit. Additionally, plaintiff filed his complaint on April 10, 2015, which was well outside the two-year statute of limitations.
Plaintiff asserts the motion judge should have tolled the statute of limitations because of ongoing mental illness. The New Jersey Supreme Court defined mental competence for purposes of statute of limitations, to mean "such a condition of mental derangement as actually prevents the sufferer from understanding his legal rights or instituting legal action." Kyle v. Green Acres at Verona, Inc., 44 N.J. 100, 113 (1965). Therefore, for the statute of limitations to be tolled, plaintiff would have to demonstrate his mental condition prevented him from understanding his legal rights or bringing a cause of action.
A review of the record indicates plaintiff argued he suffered from mental illness but did not demonstrate he lacked capacity to understand his legal rights. Indeed, he asserted he and his sister contacted Disability Rights New Jersey in June 2013, as well as various attorneys, to discuss legal action against the DOC for their alleged mistreatment.
Additionally, plaintiff submitted close to a thousand pages of medical and prison records documenting his mental condition, which was not provided to the trial court. This court will only consider the record as presented to the trial court. R. 2:5-4. Because the trial court below was not provided with any documentation demonstrating plaintiff's mental condition left him so incapacitated as to not understand his rights or his ability to institute legal action, the trial court properly found plaintiff failed to file a claim within the two-year statute of limitations.
Finally, plaintiff argues the DOC violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment and his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. We "decline to consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity for such a presentation is available unless the questions so raised on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest." Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because plaintiff failed to raise these arguments in his initial complaint, we decline to consider these issues.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION