Shomo v. State of New York

Background

Jose Shomo, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued Nurse Barbara Furco, Dr. Mary Genovese, Superintendent William Connolly, Deputy Superintendent Paula Butler, Dr. Joseph Avanzato, Dr. John Hammer, Nurse Roni Mazza, Nurse Pauline M. Longkutoy, Nurse S. Ntambi, Nurse J. Murry, Aide T. Codrington, Aide Victoria Relyea, Corrections Captain Webbe, Corrections Officer J. Schmidt, and Corrections Counselor J. Landol. He alleged violations of the First and Eighth Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act and its amendments.

The alleged events occurred at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and Fishkill Correctional Facility between March 18, 2012, and December 2, 2013. Shomo alleged that prison personnel failed to assist him with daily activities, including eating; exposed him to cold conditions; served spoiled or cold food; interfered with his ability to write; kept his lights on continuously; assaulted him; denied him medication; falsified medical records; and retaliated against him for filing grievances. The opinion states that Shomo alleged he was quadriplegic during the relevant period.

Shomo had also raised related claims in an earlier round of litigation. In that proceeding, the court allowed only certain claims to proceed and denied leave to add the claims asserted in this case. Shomo then filed this action on September 17, 2018.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The court applied a three-year statute of limitations to Shomo’s claims. Because the alleged conduct ended by December 2, 2013, the court determined that the limitations period expired on December 2, 2016. Shomo did not file this case until September 17, 2018, so the claims were untimely unless equitable tolling applied.

Equitable Tolling

Equitable tolling is an unusual extension of a filing deadline. The court explained that Shomo had to show both extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing and reasonable diligence throughout the period he sought to extend.

The court concluded that Shomo did not meet that burden. It found that the alleged loss of access to a writing assistant and law clerk did not establish extraordinary circumstances. The court also relied on materials indicating that some restrictions resulted from Shomo’s alleged behavior. In addition, the court found that Shomo had not shown reasonable diligence because he filed another lawsuit during the limitations period, did not show that he took steps at the relevant time to file these claims, and waited after his transfer from Coxsackie even though approximately one year remained to file timely claims.

The court also found that Shomo did not adequately explain which legal papers were missing, why they were necessary, whether he obtained replacements, or why he could not file without them. The court noted that he made numerous filings in the earlier related proceeding while at Wende but still waited until nearly two years after the limitations period expired to file this case. Because equitable tolling was unavailable, the court did not reach the defendants’ other arguments.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court declined to give Shomo leave to amend. Although courts generally give self-represented litigants an opportunity to amend, the court found that amendment would be futile because the claims were time-barred and better pleading would not cure that problem.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Shomo fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Vincent Briccetti did not add a separate “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation in the stated disposition.