Pierre v. Nassau County
2:17-cv-06629
| E.D.N.Y | Jul 21, 2022Background
- On October 18, 2014, Pierre alleges that Elmont/Nassau officers (identified later as McJacobs, Sandy, Griffin in his papers) violently arrested him, then took him to a hospital where treatment was denied and property was stolen.
- After transfer to Nassau County Jail, Pierre alleges he was maced, sexually assaulted, denied mental-health medication, placed in special housing, and subjected to repeated retaliatory assaults and harassment; he filed IG complaints and grievances in late 2014.
- Pierre filed this § 1983 suit on November 8, 2017 (near the three-year limitations cutoff for 2014 claims) and later moved to amend to (a) substitute named officers for John/Jane Doe defendants and add IG personnel, (b) add additional constitutional claims, and (c) clarify factual allegations; he also moved to compel video evidence and for sanctions.
- The County resisted, asserting the proposed additions were untimely, that identities were discoverable earlier, and that requested video either was already produced or does not exist.
- The magistrate judge granted leave only to amend limited factual details in the complaint (e.g., Pierre was a taxi passenger, did not stay overnight at the hospital, and to clarify injuries), but denied substitution/addition of named defendants and denial of new, time‑barred claims; the motion to compel and for sanctions was denied for failure to meet-and-confer and lack of evidence that responsive video exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Pierre substitute John/Jane Doe defendants with named officers after the statute of limitations? | Pierre says names were referenced in his amended facts and FOIL/records requests were ignored; he seeks substitution to identify the arresting and jail officers. | County argues amendments are time‑barred, Plaintiff delayed years, and identities were available in public records. | Denied — relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) unavailable; John Doe substitution is treated as adding new parties and is futile. |
| May added parties (Inspector General and IG officers) be joined after SOL? | Pierre seeks to add IG as liable for failure to protect. | County: too late; adding new parties after SOL not allowed. | Denied — adding new parties after SOL does not relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C). |
| Do newly alleged claims (strip search, surreptitious medication, later retaliation) relate back to the original complaint? | Pierre says amendments only clarify facts and do not state new causes of action. | County contends the proposed allegations are distinct and would not have given notice within the limitations period. | Denied — new factual allegations are time‑barred and fail to relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(B). |
| Is Plaintiff entitled to an order compelling production of surveillance video and sanctions for spoliation? | Pierre contends photographs are inadequate and video exists that the County is withholding; asks for sanctions. | County says it produced responsive photos, asserts the jail surveillance does not record, and Plaintiff failed to meet and confer before filing the motion. | Denied — Plaintiff failed to meet‑and‑confer and provided only speculation; court will not compel production of evidence defendant certifies does not exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend generally granted absent undue delay, bad faith, futility, or prejudice)
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend)
- Slayton v. American Express Co., 460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006) (relation back when amendment makes prior allegations more definite and precise)
- Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 1995) (distinguishing mistake of identity from lack of knowledge of a John Doe defendant)
- Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2013) (John Doe pleadings generally cannot circumvent statutes of limitations for adding named officers)
- Ceara v. Deacon, 916 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining limits of Rule 15(c)(1)(C) for replacing John Doe defendants)
- Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Commc’ns, Inc., 681 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2012) (amendment futile when the proposed claim would fail under Rule 12(b)(6))