Gunn v. Doe
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-10383
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gunn v. Doe, Judge Stanton dismissed Darrell Gunn’s untimely civil-rights lawsuit and denied him further permission to amend.
Darrell Gunn’s complaint was dismissed as untimely, and he was denied further permission to amend it. The order ended this action against Jane Doe and the other defendants.
What happened
In Gunn v. Doe, Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over alleged radiation exposure during an x-ray. The exposure allegedly occurred on either May 5 or September 22, 2016.
Gunn acknowledged that he filed the lawsuit more than three years after either possible exposure date. He argued that the filing deadline should be extended because of cold conditions, physical therapy, hunger strikes, confiscated glasses and legal papers, and limited law-library access. The court found that these circumstances did not justify extending the deadline.
Judge Stanton dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the prisoner-screening statute and denied further permission to amend. The court also directed the clerk to mail Gunn a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. Doe · No. 1:19-cv-10383
- Louis Stanton
- Sept. 23, 2020
Background
Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed the complaint without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. He brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by exposing him to radiation during an x-ray. The complaint identified either May 5, 2016, or September 22, 2016, as the date of exposure. Gunn signed and dated the original complaint on November 2, 2019.
The court had previously allowed Gunn to amend his complaint. It later ordered him to explain why the action should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, which is the deadline for filing a lawsuit. Gunn submitted a declaration but did not dispute that the action was late. Instead, he argued that equitable tolling—an exception that can extend a filing deadline in compelling circumstances—should apply.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a § 1983 claim generally has a three-year filing deadline. Because Gunn filed more than three years after either date he identified for the alleged exposure, the court considered whether his reasons justified equitable tolling.
The court rejected each reason. It found that cold conditions at the correctional facility during short periods did not excuse the failure to file within the 36-month period. Gunn did not explain why physical therapy prevented him from filing. He also did not explain how his hunger strikes affected his ability to file after they ended. The confiscation of his glasses did not explain why he failed to file in 2018 or 2019. Finally, even assuming that limited law-library access and confiscated legal papers prevented filing in 2016 and 2017, the court found that those obstacles did not justify the failure to file by 2019.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of certain complaints filed without the filing fee when they fail to state a legally sufficient claim. The court denied further leave to amend because Gunn had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and the defects could not be cured by another amendment. The clerk was directed to mail Gunn a copy of the order and note service on the docket.
The opinion is signed and dated September 21, 2020, although the supplied case information lists September 23, 2020, as the filing date.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.