Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 13, 2019

Starkes v. Rikers Island Correctional Facility

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-04017
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Starkes v. Rikers Island Correctional Facility, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se action as time-barred and denied appointed counsel as moot.

Who this affects

Quentin Starkes’s action was dismissed as time-barred; his motion to appoint counsel was denied as moot, and he was denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.

What happened

Quentin Starkes sued Rikers Island Correctional Facility and the County of Queens. The court had directed him to explain why the action should not be dismissed as too late, and he submitted a declaration.

The court found that the declaration did not explain why the action was not time-barred and dismissed the action. It also denied Starkes’s motion to appoint counsel as moot.

Judge Colleen McMahon certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Starkes v. Rikers Island Correctional Facility · No. 1:19-cv-04017
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Dec. 13, 2019

Background

Quentin Starkes sued Rikers Island Correctional Facility and the County of Queens. He appeared without a lawyer. On October 22, 2019, the court ordered Starkes to explain within 30 days why the action should not be dismissed as time-barred, meaning filed after the applicable deadline. The court warned that it would dismiss the action if he did not provide an adequate explanation or did not respond.

The court received a declaration from Starkes on November 27, 2019. The opinion says that the declaration did not show why the action should not be dismissed as time-barred.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which allows dismissal for failure to state a claim when the allegations show that relief is barred by the statute of limitations. The court relied on decisions stating that a district court may dismiss a case on its own initiative on limitations grounds when the relevant facts appear in the plaintiff’s submissions, after giving the plaintiff notice and an opportunity to respond.

The court denied Starkes’s motion to appoint counsel as moot. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Starkes a copy of the order and record service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.