Verrier v. Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Plymouth, Inc.Verrier v. Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Plymouth, Inc.
GORTON, J.
Jonathan Verrier (“Verrier” or “plaintiff“), pro se, brings this action in which he alleges that he was subject to an unlawful manual body cavity search at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Plymouth (“BIDHP“) while in pretrial detention at Plymouth County Correctional Facility (“PCCF“). In his amended complaint, he names as defendants BIDHP, the Massachusetts Department of Correсtion (“DOC“) and the Sheriff of Plymouth County and the Superintendent of PCCF.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated
The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff was civilly committed at MCI Bridgewater under
Verrier alleges that he was prescribed Suboxone for his opioid addiction and that he hid the medication in his rectum because he did not trust the prison system. Corrections officers later required plaintiff to defecate the drugs.
On February 19, 2019, two corrections officers escorted plaintiff to BIDHP after a nurse at MCI Bridgewater allegedly reported that he needed to go to the hospital. At BIDHP, an X-ray revealed that plaintiff still had Suboxone secreted in his body. He asserts that instead of receiving medical treаtment, he was subjected to a manual body cavity search by a doctor without his consent. Plaintiff allegedly offered to retrieve the pills himself but wаs told that if he did not permit a doctor to retrieve the drugs, surgery would be required.
Plaintiff contends that the doctor manually penetrated his anus in front of corrections officers and medical students. As a result, he purportedly suffers from nightmares about doctors and is currently on PTSD medication.
Verrier filed the original complaint on October 27, 2022, and the amended complaint on May 26, 2023.
II. Motions to Dismiss
A. Legal Standard
To survive a motion to dismiss under
When rendering that determination, a court may consider certain categories of documents extrinsic to the complaint “without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” Freeman v. Town of Hudson, 714 F.3d 29, 36 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993)). For instance, a court may consider documents of undisputed authenticity, official public records, documents central to a plaintiff‘s claim and documents that were sufficiently referred to in the complaint. Watterson, 987 F.2d at 3.
A court may not disregard properly pled factual allegations in the complaint even if actual proof of those fаcts is improbable. Ocasio-Hernandez, 640 F.3d at 12. Rather, the court‘s inquiry must focus on the reasonableness of the inference of liability that the plaintiff is asking the court to draw. Id. at 13.
Additiоnally, a defendant can assert a “statute of limitations defense in a motion to dismiss if the facts establishing the defense are clear on the fаce of the plaintiff‘s pleadings.” Maffeo v. White Pine Invs., 537 F. Supp. 3d 45, 47 (D. Mass. 2021) (internal quotations and citation
B. Application
1. M.G.L. c. 123, § 35 Claim
Plaintiff asserts that the defendants violated
As defendants all contend,
2. Constitutional Claims
Plaintiff asserts violations of his constitutional rights including (1) substantive due process rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (Count II), (2)
Claims brought under Section 1983 have a statute of limitations equivalent to that which is prescribed by the tort аctions for personal injury of the subject state. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985). In Massachusetts, personal injury claims must be commenced within three years from when a рlaintiff knows or has reason to know of the alleged injury.
Here, the amended complaint illustrates that plaintiff knew of his alleged injuries by February 19, 2019, at the latest. His original complaint was filed on October 27, 2022, more than 8 months after the three-year statutory deadline, and there are no other dates mentioned in the amended complaint from which the statute of limitations could be measured. Therefore, the motions to dismiss Counts II, IV, VII, and VIII will be allowed.1
3. ADA Claim
Plaintiff asserts a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“). The statute of limitations for ADA claims in Massachusetts borrows from the state statute оf limitations for personal injuries which is three years. See Sigros v. Walt Disney World Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 165, 168 (D. Mass. 2002).
As discussed supra, the amended complaint states that Verrier knew of his alleged injuries on February 19, 2019. Beсause the original complaint was filed more than three years after that date, the motions to dismiss Count III will be allowed.
Finally, plaintiff alleges sеveral state tort claims including (1) false imprisonment, (2) negligence and (3) intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. Those are all personal injury claims subject to the three-year Massachusetts statute of limitations.
Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated
Here too, the complaint was filed more than three years after the plaintiff knew of his alleged injuries. Therefore, the motions to dismiss Counts V, VI, IX and X will be allowed.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the motions of defendants Massachusеtts Department of Correction (Docket No. 15), Sheriff MacDonald and Superintendent Moniz (Docket No. 17) and Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Plymouth, Inc. (Docket No. 20) to dismiss the amended complaint are ALLOWED.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: December 11, 2023