Harvey v. Melville

Background

Umar Harvey, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violations of federal rights. He alleged that Captain Melville conducted an unfair prison disciplinary hearing and that Albert Prack improperly handled his administrative appeal. Harvey also named Anthony Annucci based on Annucci’s supervisory position, but Harvey voluntarily discontinued his claims against Annucci.

The alleged events began with a March 14, 2014, cell search at Green Haven Correctional Facility that uncovered a sharpened metal rod. Harvey was charged with possessing a weapon or dangerous instrument. At his April 14, 2014, disciplinary hearing, he maintained that another inmate had planted the object. Harvey alleged that he was denied the opportunity to question that inmate, obtain information about a confidential informant, and present potentially exonerating evidence. He was found guilty and lost six months of good-time credit and five months of privileges. His preference transfer was rescinded, and he was denied the opportunity to complete his treatment program.

Harvey appealed the disciplinary decision, but the appeal was denied on June 16, 2014. In a prior related state proceeding, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, annulled the disciplinary determination and sent the matter back for further proceedings, finding that Harvey had been denied a fair hearing when he could not properly question the other inmate. Harvey later alleged that the disciplinary record contributed to a parole denial on October 25, 2017. He filed this federal action around July 30, 2018.

Motion and legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Harvey had not stated a plausible claim and that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On such a motion, the court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true but disregards unsupported legal conclusions. The court also said that complaints filed by people without lawyers should be read liberally, while emphasizing that they still must contain enough facts to support a plausible claim.

Statute of limitations

Because § 1983 does not provide its own limitations period, the court applied New York’s three-year period for personal-injury claims. Federal law determines when a § 1983 claim begins to run. For procedural due-process claims involving prison disciplinary hearings, the court explained that the claim begins no later than the hearing date or the date the prisoner’s final administrative appeal is decided. Under either approach, Harvey had to file by June 16, 2017, at the latest.

The court rejected Harvey’s argument that the limitations period began when he learned from the state court decision that his rights had been violated. It also rejected his argument that the state proceeding paused the federal deadline. The court explained that pursuing a state proceeding does not toll, or suspend, the limitations period for a § 1983 claim. Because Harvey filed this federal action more than a year after the deadline, the claims were untimely.

Equitable tolling and continuing violations

The court considered whether equitable tolling could excuse the late filing. Equitable tolling may apply when a plaintiff was kept from filing on time by fraud, misrepresentation, or deception and acted diligently. The court found that Harvey had not alleged sufficient facts to support it.

The court also considered the continuing-violation doctrine, which can sometimes extend the filing period when separate acts are part of an ongoing unlawful policy or practice. It found that Harvey had described separate actions rather than a coherent discriminatory policy. The court concluded that the later parole denial did not establish a continuing violation.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The court dismissed Harvey’s claims in their entirety without prejudice and granted leave to amend only to address equitable tolling or show that the continuing-violation doctrine applies. Harvey was given until October 16, 2020, to file an amended complaint. The court stated that failure to comply on time may result in dismissal with prejudice.