Pepin v. New York City Department of Education
671 F. App'x 18
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Milciades Pepin, pro se, alleges a § 1983 due‑process deprivation: DOE deprived him of his teaching license and placed a “problem code” on his employment file, which prevented obtaining a Certificate of Eligibility for supervisory positions.
- His employment was discontinued and he was placed on an "ineligible/inquiry" list in October 2010.
- Pepin engaged in state‑court litigation that in 2014 partly ruled in his favor, ordering removal of problem codes tied to certain annulled or unsubstantiated items but expressly not fully removing the code.
- Pepin reapplied for DOE employment in April 2014 and discovered the problem code remained; he filed this federal § 1983 action on December 8, 2014.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as time‑barred under New York’s three‑year statute of limitations; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pepin’s § 1983 due‑process claim is time‑barred | Pepin contends he only knew the code remained after the 2014 state‑court proceedings and discovery on reapplication, so accrual occurred in 2014 | DOE argues accrual occurred in Oct 2010 when the problem code was first placed and his employment was discontinued | Claim accrued in Oct 2010; federal complaint filed Dec 2014 was untimely and dismissed |
| Whether the 2014 state‑court order restarted or tolled accrual | Pepin asserts the state ruling removed the code or left uncertainty until 2014, delaying accrual | DOE asserts the state ruling expressly did not fully remove the code, so accrual was not delayed | State‑court decision did not change accrual; continuing effects do not revive a time‑barred claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrows v. Burwell, 777 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2015) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not assumed true on a motion to dismiss)
- Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961 (2d Cir. 2015) (New York’s three‑year statute applies to § 1983 claims)
- Covington v. City of New York, 171 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1999) (accrual when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
- Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1999) (continuing effects do not revive time‑barred claims)