Ash v. City of N.Y.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:16-cv-09548
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ash v. City of N.Y., Judge Woods rejected equitable tolling, dismissed two incident-based claims with prejudice, and kept other claims pending.
Damon Ash’s claims based on the May 16, 2013, and January 26, 2015, incidents were dismissed with prejudice. Officer McKenzie, Lieutenant Leahy, Sergeant Lee, and the City of New York were removed as defendants. The remaining defendants faced Ash’s repleaded religious discrimination and defamation claims and were directed to respond by March 5, 2020.
What happened
In Ash v. City of N.Y., Damon Ash asked the court to extend the filing deadline for claims based on incidents from May 16, 2013, and January 26, 2015. He also filed an amended complaint raising religious discrimination and defamation claims.
Ash relied partly on his diagnosis of manic depression, arguing that his condition supported extending the deadline. The court noted that his submissions described complaints to internal affairs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and efforts to find a lawyer in 2015.
The court found that Ash had not shown extraordinary circumstances preventing timely action, so equitable tolling did not apply. Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the claims based on the two incidents with prejudice, removed the City of New York, Officer McKenzie, Lieutenant Leahy, and Sergeant Lee as defendants, and directed the remaining defendants to respond to the amended complaint by March 5, 2020.
The detailed version
- Ash v. City of N.Y. · No. 1:16-cv-09548
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 12, 2020
Background
In an earlier order, the court gave Damon Ash permission to submit factual support for extending the statute of limitations—the deadline for filing a claim—for alleged incidents on May 16, 2013, and January 26, 2015. On January 30, 2020, Ash submitted letters styled as a motion for equitable tolling and filed an amended complaint.
Ash’s submissions described his diagnosis of manic depression. The court explained that equitable tolling is an exceptional extension of a filing deadline. To receive it, a plaintiff must show reasonable diligence and extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely action. The plaintiff bears that burden.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Ash’s submissions did not show that his condition incapacitated him or prevented him from acting in time. The court relied on Ash’s allegations that he repeatedly complained to internal affairs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and tried to locate counsel in 2015. In the court’s view, those allegations suggested that Ash understood his rights and was capable of taking steps to protect them during the period when he claimed to have been incapacitated.
Ruling
The court concluded that equitable tolling did not apply to Ash’s claims arising from the May 16, 2013, and January 26, 2015, incidents. It therefore held that those claims were untimely and dismissed them with prejudice. The court had construed Ash’s claims against Officer McKenzie, Lieutenant Leahy, Sergeant Lee, and the City of New York as relating only to those incidents, so those defendants were no longer part of the case.
The court had previously allowed Ash to replead religious discrimination and defamation claims and understood the amended complaint to do so against the remaining defendants. It directed those defendants to answer or otherwise respond by March 5, 2020. The clerk was directed to remove Officer McKenzie, Lieutenant Leahy, Sergeant Lee, and the City of New York from the caption, terminate the pending motion at Docket Number 140, and mail Ash a copy of the order by first-class and certified mail.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.