Hogan v. Fischer
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25337
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Hogan is a pro se inmate at Attica challenging three masked COs who sprayed him with a feces- and vinegar-containing mixture in February 2009, causing eye burns, neck injury, and psychological harm.
- A fourth CO, Erhardt, allegedly opened the gallery gates, enabling the assault as retaliation for Hogan's prior reports of assaults.
- Hogan filed a May 2009 § 1983 complaint naming Attica officers and seven John Doe defendants; the sixth through ninth claims asserted Eighth Amendment excessive-force violations.
- The district court granted 12(b)(6) and 12(c) dismissal in October 2012, dismissing the entire complaint with prejudice, including claims against the John Does, despite no motion targeting the Does.
- Discovery over three years failed to identify the John Doe defendants; AG's office had provided some names, but Hogan sought more investigative materials.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated in part, holding the Eighth Amendment claim plausibly alleged excessive force and that New York’s § 1024 allows John Doe substitutions not time-barred, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spraying with feces and vinegar constitutes excessive force under the Eighth Amendment | Hogan argues the act was not de minimis and showed malicious intent | Defendants contend the act was de minimis and not repugnant to decency | Plausible Eighth Amendment violation; not de minimis; repugnant to conscience of mankind |
| Whether the district court correctly dismissed John Doe claims as time-barred | Hogan argues John Doe substitutions should be allowed | Defendants contend Rule 15(c) bars relation back for unknown defendants | Not time-barred under New York CPLR §1024; remand for John Doe identification and amendment |
| Whether Rule 15(c)(1)(A) permits relation back under state limitations law in John Doe context | State-law relation-back may save Doe claims | Federal relation-back rules apply, potentially barring Doe substitutions | New York law provides a more forgiving relation-back option; applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (excessive force requires more than de minimis conduct; context matters)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1986) (de minimis force may violate due process depending on context)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (core inquiry: good-faith disciplinary purpose vs malicious intent)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) (conditioning standards for Eighth Amendment excessive force claims)
- DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001) (no penological purpose for indiscriminate spraying; may show culpable mind)
- Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept., 66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 1995) (relation back limits for added defendants under Rule 15(c))
- Tapia-Ortiz v. Doe, 171 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 1999) (Rule 15(c)(1)(C) limitations on John Doe substitutions)
- Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2002) (§1983 accrual and relation back under state law)