Columna v. Gomez
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-03801
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Columna v. Gomez, Judge Vyskocil granted Perez and Roche’s dismissal motion as untimely but allowed 30 days to amend.
Darwin Columna and Officers Josue Perez and Pedro Roche; the court dismissed Columna’s claims against Perez and Roche as untimely, while the opinion did not resolve the claims against the other defendants.
What happened
In Columna v. Gomez, Darwin Columna alleged that police officers violated his civil rights during a 2016 arrest, detention, use of force, and criminal prosecution. He also alleged retaliation for an earlier lawsuit. The motion addressed only claims against Officers Josue Perez and Pedro Roche, who were added to the case after Columna’s original complaint named unknown defendants.
The court ruled that the claims against Perez and Roche were filed after the three-year deadline for these civil-rights claims. Because the officers replaced unknown defendants in the amended complaint, the amendment did not relate back to the original filing date. The court also stated that Columna’s complaint did not allege a malicious-prosecution claim against Perez or Roche.
Judge Vyskocil granted the motion to dismiss the claims against Perez and Roche. The court gave Columna 30 days to add facts about those officers’ possible involvement in the prosecution or continued harassment, but did not decide whether such amendments would succeed. If Columna does not amend within that period, the dismissal will be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Columna v. Gomez · No. 1:19-cv-03801
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 25, 2020
Background
Darwin Columna, representing himself, brought civil-rights claims connected to his April 26, 2016 arrest and prosecution for possessing phencyclidine, or PCP. He alleged false arrest, excessive force during his detention, malicious prosecution, and retaliation for a prior lawsuit. According to the allegations, Officer Josue Perez forcibly grabbed and shook him, ordered another officer to cut off his rosary, and was present during events involving a cavity search and tasering. Columna also identified Officer Pedro Roche as one of the officers who arrived at the scene.
Columna filed the original complaint on April 26, 2019, the last day of the applicable three-year limitations period. The original complaint named several unknown defendants. After the City of New York’s Corporation Counsel identified officers in response to a court order, Columna filed an amended complaint in September 2019 naming Perez and Roche for the first time. Perez and Roche moved to dismiss the claims against them as untimely. Columna did not oppose the motion.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that an unopposed motion is not automatically granted. It independently reviewed whether the complaint was legally sufficient and construed Columna’s pro se allegations liberally.
The court held that the relevant claims against Perez and Roche accrued on April 26, 2016 and were subject to New York’s three-year limitations period for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. Because Perez and Roche were not named until September 2019, the claims against them were untimely.
The court considered whether the amended complaint could relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). It held that, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, replacing unknown John Doe defendants with identified defendants does not qualify for relation back when the plaintiff previously did not know their identities. The court also concluded that the time taken to obtain the identification order and the City’s response did not change the limitations analysis because Columna filed the original complaint on the final day of the limitations period.
The court stated that the motion concerned only excessive-force, false-arrest, and retaliation claims. It could not construe the complaint as asserting a malicious-prosecution claim against Perez or Roche because Columna alleged that only Officer Genner Gomez signed a document supporting the criminal complaint and did not allege that Perez or Roche participated in the prosecution itself.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Perez and Roche’s motion to dismiss the claims against them. The court granted Columna 30 days to amend the complaint with any additional facts about Perez’s or Roche’s involvement in the prosecution or about continued harassment that might affect the limitations analysis. The court did not decide the merits of any possible amendment and prohibited adding new defendants or new claims arising from the April 2016 arrest and detention. If Columna does not amend within 30 days, the dismissal of Perez and Roche will be with prejudice. The opinion did not resolve the claims addressed by the motion against the other defendants.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.