Devane v. Doe

Background

Donnie Devane brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by a person acting under state authority. He alleged that, in May 2015, a John Doe doctor at Downstate Correctional Facility violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide privacy during a medical examination. The caption also names the Superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility as a defendant. Devane was incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility when the opinion was issued.

The court had already granted Devane permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under the prisoner-complaint screening laws, the court must review the complaint and dismiss it if it is legally insufficient, frivolous, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must dismiss a case if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Statute of Limitations

The court stated that § 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year statute of limitations. Such a claim ordinarily begins when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know about the injury. Devane alleged that the relevant event occurred in May 2015 and that he knew of the alleged violation when it happened.

Devane signed his complaint on October 30, 2020. Because he was incarcerated, the prison-mailbox rule treated that signature date as the filing date. The court concluded that the complaint was submitted more than two years after the three-year limitations period had expired.

Equitable Tolling

The court explained that equitable tolling can extend a filing deadline in narrow circumstances, such as when a defendant fraudulently conceals the existence of a claim or induces a person to wait until the deadline passes. The court found that Devane had not alleged facts suggesting that equitable tolling should apply.

Order to Show Cause and Disposition

Although a statute-of-limitations defense is generally raised by the defendant, the court may dismiss a complaint when the time bar is clear from the plaintiff’s own filings. Before doing so, however, the court said it should give the plaintiff notice and an opportunity to respond.

The court therefore ordered Devane to file a declaration within 60 days showing why the complaint should not be dismissed as time-barred. The declaration could include facts supporting equitable tolling. The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order, and no summons would issue at that time. It stated that if Devane failed to comply and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.