Bolling v. City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-05406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Bolling v. City of New York, Judge Gardephe adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting the City’s motion and denying Officer Meyers’s.
Thomas Bolling’s Section 1983 claims against the City of New York and Officer Meyers; the motion was granted as to the City and denied as to Officer Meyers, with permission to seek amendment of the City claim.
What happened
Thomas Bolling, representing himself, sued the City of New York and NYPD Officer Meyers under a federal civil-rights law over his 2015 arrest. Defendants argued that Bolling filed too late and that his claim against the City was inadequately stated.
The court found that Bolling’s late filing should be excused because his former attorney gave him incorrect information about the incident date and filing deadline, while Bolling had acted reasonably diligently. But the court agreed that Bolling had not provided specific facts showing that a City policy or widespread practice caused the alleged violation.
Judge Gardephe adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. The court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the City of New York, denied it as to Officer Meyers, and allowed Bolling to seek permission to amend his claim against the City.
The detailed version
- Bolling v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-05406
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 6, 2020
Background
Thomas Bolling, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under Section 1983 against the City of New York and NYPD Officer Meyers. He alleged that officers violated his rights in connection with a June 3, 2015 arrest. According to the complaint, officers handcuffed Bolling, placed him in a patrol car, took him to Mount Sinai Hospital, and put him in a cell. Bolling alleged that the handcuffs caused him great pain. Medical staff later evaluated and released him.
Bolling initially relied on attorney Andrew Bersin to bring an action concerning the incident. Bersin later ended the representation and told Bolling that the incident occurred on June 15, 2015, and that a lawsuit had to be filed by June 14, 2018. Bolling filed this action on June 14, 2018. He later obtained hospital records showing that the incident occurred on June 3, 2015, meaning that the filing was eleven days late under the applicable limitations period.
Report and Recommendation
Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. After an evidentiary hearing about the circumstances of Bolling’s filing, Judge Lehrburger recommended granting the motion as to the City and denying it as to Officer Meyers. Neither side objected to the recommendation.
Statute of limitations
The court agreed that equitable tolling applied. Equitable tolling can extend a filing deadline when the person seeking the extension acted with reasonable diligence and extraordinary circumstances caused the delay. The court found that Bersin gave Bolling incorrect information about both the incident date and the filing deadline, that Bolling relied on that information, and that Bolling had only a short time to file after proceeding without counsel.
The court also agreed that Bolling had acted reasonably diligently. It noted that he retained Bersin about three months before the limitations period expired, repeatedly followed up about the case, and filed by the date Bersin identified in the termination letter. The court therefore denied the limitations-based part of Defendants’ motion.
Claim against the City
Bolling’s claim against the City was based on the municipal-liability doctrine commonly called a Monell claim. To plead such a claim, a plaintiff must provide facts supporting that a municipal policy, widespread practice, or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Bolling alleged no particular policy or widespread practice that encouraged Officer Meyers to arrest him or subject him to a medical examination. Instead, his allegations about City policies were general and conclusory.
The court therefore agreed that the claim against the City was inadequately pleaded and granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the City of New York. Because the court could not rule out the possibility that Bolling could correct the defect with additional allegations, it granted him leave to seek permission to file an amended complaint by April 6, 2020, with the proposed complaint attached.
Disposition
Judge Gardephe adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted as to Defendant City of New York and denied as to Defendant Meyers.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.