Gonzalez v. Hasty
802 F.3d 212
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- In 1999 Gonzalez was placed in the MCC (Manhattan) Special Housing Unit (SHU) after stabbing an inmate and remained in SHU through transfer to the MDC (Brooklyn) SHU, totalling over two years at MCC plus ~9 months at MDC; he alleges Warden Hasty orchestrated continued SHU confinement out of personal/racial animus.
- Gonzalez claims defendants falsified SHU review records, failed to provide required weekly/monthly reviews and psychological assessments under 28 C.F.R. § 541.22, and conspired to keep him in harsh SHU conditions.
- He exhausted administrative remedies for MCC SHU claims by November 15, 2000, and for MDC SHU claims by August 8, 2002; he filed this Bivens suit on May 31, 2005.
- The district court dismissed First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment Bivens claims as time-barred, concluding the continuing violation doctrine did not apply; this appeal followed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal in part, vacated in part, and remanded: it held the continuing violation doctrine may apply to Gonzalez’s Eighth Amendment claim (SHU conditions/duration), but not to his First Amendment retaliation or most Fifth Amendment procedural-due-process claims; some Fifth Amendment claims based on discrete failures to provide required periodic hearings might still be timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continuing violation doctrine applies to Bivens claims here | Continuing-violation should aggregate MCC and MDC confinement so claim accrues at release, making suit timely | Limitations began when Gonzalez knew of injury (transfer dates); doctrine not applicable or facts show discrete acts | Doctrine may apply to Eighth Amendment SHU conditions claim but not to First or most Fifth Amendment claims |
| First Amendment retaliation accrual | Retaliatory placement and continued SHU confinement were ongoing, so accrual delayed | Retaliatory acts (initial placements) were discrete and triggered accrual on their dates | Retaliation claim is untimely; continuing-violation does not apply to discrete retaliatory acts |
| Fifth Amendment procedural due process accrual | Ongoing failures to provide required notices/hearings make claim continuing | Each failure is a discrete act, so each triggers its own limitations period | Continuing-violation not applicable; discrete due-process violations may be actionable if they occurred after cutoff date |
| Whether remand should permit discovery / whether reassignment is warranted | Discovery sought about the transfer to MDC and implicated staff; ask for reassignment for perceived bias | District court management appropriate; no unusual circumstances warrant reassignment | Court declines to decide implicit discovery denial; plaintiff may renew discovery on remand; reassignment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (continuing violation doctrine: discrete acts start new limitations clock; aggregative claims accrue after threshold conduct)
- Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (Eighth Amendment scrutiny of prison/SHU conditions and duration)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (applying continuing violation doctrine to a series-of-acts Eighth Amendment claim)
- Mix v. Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co., 345 F.3d 82 (distinguishing discovery-based accrual from occurrence-based accrual for continuing-violation analysis)
- Chin v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 21 (statute of limitations for Bivens claims borrows state personal-injury limitations)