Gunn v. Doe
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-10383
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Gunn v. Doe, Judge Stanton ordered Darrell Gunn to explain within 60 days why his federal civil-rights claims should not be dismissed as time-barred.
Darrell Gunn must respond within 60 days to try to prevent dismissal of his claims against John Doe and the other defendants. The order does not yet dismiss the case.
What happened
In Gunn v. Doe, Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued John Doe and other defendants under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that an x-ray exposed him to radiation in violation of the Constitution.
The court concluded that the claim appeared to have been filed after New York’s three-year deadline for these claims. The opinion identifies the alleged incident as May 5, 2016, in the original complaint, and September 22, 2016, in the amended complaint; another section refers to September 26, 2016.
Judge Louis Stanton did not dismiss the case at this stage. Instead, he ordered Gunn to submit a declaration within 60 days explaining why the case should not be dismissed as time-barred, including facts supporting possible equitable tolling. The court stated that it would dismiss the complaint if Gunn failed to comply and could not show good cause.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. Doe · No. 1:19-cv-10383
- Louis Stanton
- May 6, 2020
Background
Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and proceeded without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants exposed him to radiation during an x-ray, violating rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The caption names John Doe and other defendants. The court had previously allowed Gunn to amend his complaint.
Gunn’s original complaint identified May 5, 2016, as the date of the incident. His amended complaint identified September 22, 2016. In discussing the limitations period, the court referred to September 26, 2016. Gunn signed the original complaint on November 2, 2019, and the court received it on November 6, 2019.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that § 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year statute of limitations, meaning a three-year deadline for filing suit. Such a claim generally begins when the plaintiff knows, or has reason to know, of the injury. For a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, the complaint is treated as filed when the prisoner gives it to prison authorities for mailing.
Based on the dates in Gunn’s filings, the court determined that the action appeared to have been filed after the three-year period expired. Although a plaintiff ordinarily does not have to plead that a claim was timely, a court may dismiss on limitations grounds when the time-bar is clear from the plaintiff’s own filings. Before doing so here, the court gave Gunn notice and an opportunity to respond.
Ruling and Procedure
Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered Gunn to show cause within 60 days why the court should not dismiss his § 1983 claims as time-barred. Gunn was directed to submit a declaration to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled with docket number 19-CV-10383, stating facts that might support equitable tolling. Equitable tolling is a possible extension of a filing deadline in limited circumstances, such as fraudulent concealment or conduct that induced a plaintiff to wait until the deadline passed.
The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order, and 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 the failure, the court would dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.