Gunn v. Annucci

Background

Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and represented himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. He sued Anthony J. Annucci and other defendants. The complaint asserted eight claims against 21 defendants based on events at Green Haven Correctional Facility in 2014.

Among other allegations, Gunn claimed that correctional officers assaulted him during a cell-search operation on September 16, 2014, that officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and that various supervisory officials failed to protect him from alleged abuse and misconduct. The opinion describes the allegations but does not decide whether they occurred or whether they violated federal law.

Screening and timeliness issue

Because Gunn was incarcerated and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law requires dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or otherwise falls outside the court’s authority. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read generously but still must include enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court applied New York’s three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims. A statute of limitations is a deadline for filing a lawsuit. The court said Gunn’s claims arose from events in September 2014, so he generally had until September 2017 to sue. He filed the complaint on October 25, 2019, more than two years after that deadline.

The court stated that dismissal based on a statute of limitations can be appropriate when the time-bar is clear from the complaint. But before dismissing this case on that basis, the court gave Gunn notice and an opportunity to respond.

Order

The court ordered Gunn to show cause—meaning to explain—why his § 1983 claims should not be dismissed as time-barred. It gave him 60 days to submit a declaration to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled with docket number 19-CV-10039 (CM). The declaration was to identify facts supporting equitable tolling, a narrow extension of a filing deadline when applying the deadline strictly would be unfair under compelling circumstances. The opinion gave fraudulent concealment and being induced to delay filing as examples.

The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order and stated that no summons would issue at that time. It stated that if Gunn failed to respond within the allowed period and could not show good cause for that failure, the court would dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.