571 F.Supp.3d 118
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Michael Jones sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment denial of medical care (special mattress after 2006 back surgery), First and Fourth Amendment claims arising from two full-body strip searches (April 14 and April 22, 2015), and a food-poisoning incident; several defendants and claims were previously dismissed by Judge Broderick.
- Fact discovery closed February 21, 2020; Jones moved (May 4, 2020) to amend his complaint (adding >30 named correctional officers and a new June 1, 2015 allegation against Dr. Segal) and to extend discovery.
- Judge Broderick’s April 2020 opinion left live: Eighth Amendment claims against Drs. Segal, Davydov, Villalobos; First/Fourth Amendment claims against Commissioner Ponte, the City, and the unidentified correctional officers; Monell claims against the City and Corizon.
- Jones submitted prison grievance evidence showing he filed a grievance April 24, 2015 and was transferred from DOC custody by July 2015; the IGRP ceased to apply after transfer.
- The magistrate judge construed Jones’s submissions as a motion to amend and a motion to extend discovery, and analyzed Rule 15(a), CPLR § 214 (3-year statute), CPLR § 1024 (relation back for John/Jane Doe substitutions), and equitable tolling principles under the PLRA.
- Ruling: leave to amend granted in part (Jones may add the June 1, 2015 allegation against Dr. Segal); denied in part (substitution of the newly-named correctional officers denied as futile for failure to show due diligence under CPLR § 1024); motion to extend discovery denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones may substitute named correctional officers for John/Jane Doe defendants | Substitution should be allowed now that names were obtained and relation back/§1024 should apply; equitable tolling/exhaustion issues | Futile because statute of limitations expired and Jones failed to show due diligence to identify officers before limitations ran | Denied: substitution futile. Jones did not show timely, concrete efforts to identify officers as required by CPLR §1024. |
| Whether Jones may add a new allegation that Dr. Segal saw him on June 1, 2015 and refused a special mattress | Amendment is proper under Rule 15; alleges an additional instance of deliberate indifference within the scope of existing claims | Dr. Segal contends records show she did not see Jones that day (factual denial) | Granted: amendment allowed. Factual disputes not a Rule 15 ground to deny leave. |
| Whether equitable tolling or PLRA exhaustion tolls the limitations period for the strip-search claims | Tolling applies because Jones pursued grievances and exhaustion was impeded/unavailable, so limitations should extend | Defendants argue tolling (even if applicable) cannot extend limitations to make the proposed substitutions timely; Jones stopped being subject to IGRP after transfer | Held: Tolling limited. Any tolling ended by Jones’s July 2015 transfer; even with tolling, amended pleading (Apr 2020) was untimely for adding officers. Ross v. Blake unavailability arguments do not extend statute beyond transfer date. |
| Whether discovery should be reopened to pursue the newly-named officers | Needs additional discovery on officers’ roles; names were provided before discovery closed | No good cause shown under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); Jones failed to specify needed discovery and cannot add those defendants | Denied: discovery extension not warranted, particularly because substitution of officers was denied as futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors for denying leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith, futility, prejudice)
- Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2013) (John Doe pleadings cannot circumvent limitations; CPLR §1024 substitution standards)
- Gonzalez v. Hasty, 651 F.3d 318 (2d Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling for the period a prisoner exhausts administrative remedies under the PLRA)
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (administrative remedy is "unavailable" only in limited circumstances)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (elements for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under §1983 requires showing of policy, custom, or practice)