Manuel v. Catlin

Background

Barry W. Manuel, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and proceeded without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that Deborah A. Catlin, Diedre Merriett, Diana Nieves, and Eric G. Gutwein violated his constitutional rights.

Manuel alleged that his application to participate in the Family Reunion Program was approved as to his wife but denied as to his granddaughter. After he appealed, Lieutenant Murphy and Sergeant Malark questioned him about the appeal. Manuel alleged that Senior Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator Diedre Merriett issued a disciplinary report against him and that Merriett and Deborah Catlin conspired to retaliate against him for appealing the family-program decision.

Manuel also challenged the disciplinary proceedings. He alleged that Diana Nieves, who assisted him at the hearing, failed to interview witnesses and falsely claimed she could not interview Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employees. He alleged that Eric Gutwein, who presided over the hearing, refused to allow a witness to testify, denied his request for records tracking family-program appeals, and was not impartial. Gutwein found Manuel guilty of smuggling and forgery, but not possession of contraband, and imposed 90 days of cell confinement and other restrictions. Manuel was also transferred to another facility.

Manuel appealed the disciplinary decision, and the decision was upheld on December 19, 2016. He later challenged it in a state-court proceeding. On January 18, 2018, a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision director reversed the disciplinary decision without ordering a new hearing or receiving new evidence. The state court later dismissed Manuel’s challenge as moot.

Claims and limitations period

The court identified two claims: retaliation through a false disciplinary report and denial of due process in the disciplinary proceedings. In an earlier order, the court determined that the claims accrued in 2016 and that the three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims in New York had expired when Manuel gave his complaint to prison officials for mailing on January 11, 2021.

The court had allowed Manuel to amend his complaint to allege facts supporting a later filing date or equitable tolling, which is a legal rule that can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances. Manuel argued that his due-process claim accrued when the disciplinary decision was reversed in January 2018, or that the deadline should be extended under the continuing-violation doctrine.

The court rejected those arguments. It explained that due-process claims involving prison disciplinary hearings accrue when the hearing occurs or when the agency decides the prisoner’s final administrative appeal. A discretionary reconsideration and reversal does not restart the limitations period unless a new hearing is ordered and new evidence is received. The court therefore held that Manuel’s due-process claim accrued no later than October 2016, when the hearing concluded, or December 19, 2016, when the direct appeal was finally decided.

The court held that the retaliation claim accrued when Manuel knew or had reason to know of the alleged injury—on or about the date the disciplinary report was filed in 2016. It also held that the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply because the alleged filing of a false or retaliatory disciplinary report was not conduct that had to continue or repeat before it became a violation. The continuing effects of an alleged violation did not make the violation itself ongoing. Manuel also alleged no facts supporting equitable tolling.

Ruling

Judge Louis L. Stanton concluded that Manuel’s § 1983 claims were time-barred. The court dismissed the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim. The court declined to give Manuel another opportunity to amend because it had already allowed an amendment and determined that the defects could not be cured by further amendment.

The court also declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Manuel might have been asserting. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.