Marquez-Ortiz v. United States

Background

Jerylan Marquez-Ortiz, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law that permits certain tort claims against the federal government. He alleged that on April 7, 2019, while he was an inmate at the Metropolitan Corrections Center in New York, he slipped and fell because of a water leak. He reported severe pain, including intense lower-back pain, and alleged that the facility’s health services provided x-rays and pain medication but showed little interest in obtaining magnetic resonance imaging scans requested by him and his doctor.

Marquez-Ortiz submitted an administrative claim for compensation on May 7, 2019. The claim was denied on November 6, 2019. The denial letter stated that he could bring an action in federal court within six months of the letter’s date. He alleged that he mailed an attempted court filing on April 19, 2020, before that deadline, but that the court returned the papers without explanation and did not docket them. He later wrote to the court on July 13, 2020, asking that his case be processed and that counsel be appointed. That letter was docketed and treated as an original complaint on July 21, 2021.

Government’s Motion

The Government moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim, arguing that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s six-month statute of limitations barred the action. The Government contended that Marquez-Ortiz’s complaint was filed about two months late.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed that the complaint was docketed after the six-month period. It nevertheless held that the Government had not shown at this stage that the late docketing required dismissal because equitable tolling could apply. Equitable tolling is a doctrine that pauses a statutory deadline when fairness requires it. A plaintiff generally must show both extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing and reasonable diligence during the period for which tolling is sought.

The court found that Marquez-Ortiz plausibly satisfied the extraordinary-circumstances requirement. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted court operations and Bureau of Prisons facilities. More importantly, the court accepted as plausible his allegation that the court returned his attempted filing without explaining that it had not been docketed or identifying any deficiency. The court also reasoned that pandemic-related lockdowns may have made it very difficult for him to obtain information about the filing’s status.

The court also found that Marquez-Ortiz plausibly acted diligently. He mailed what he believed was his complaint more than two weeks before the deadline and followed up with the court a few months later. The court concluded that his efforts, combined with the filing problems and pandemic disruptions, could warrant equitable tolling even though the standard for tolling is demanding.

Disposition

The court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss. It directed the Government to file an answer within 21 days after the opinion and order. The ruling addressed the statute-of-limitations defense and did not decide the merits of Marquez-Ortiz’s underlying tort claims.