Jones v. The City of New York

Background

Michael Jones, incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged constitutional violations at Rikers Island. The claims remaining in the case concerned medical treatment, strip searches, and related claims against the City of New York, Corizon Health Inc., medical providers, Commissioner Joseph A. Ponte, and unnamed correctional officers. The food-poisoning claim and several medical-staff claims had previously been dismissed, and an earlier order allowed certain medical-treatment and strip-search claims to continue.

Fact discovery ended on February 21, 2020. On May 4, 2020, Jones asked for permission to amend his complaint and to extend discovery. His proposed amendment added an allegation that Dr. Olga Segal saw him on June 1, 2015 and refused to provide a double or special mattress. It also replaced the unnamed correctional officers involved in the strip searches with more than 30 named individuals.

Motion to Amend

The court applied the rule that permission to amend should generally be freely given, but may be denied for reasons such as undue delay, prejudice, bad faith, or futility. An amendment is futile when it could not proceed legally, including because the proposed claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

The court denied leave to amend to the extent Jones sought to substitute the named correctional officers for the John and Jane Doe defendants. The strip-search incidents occurred on April 14 and April 22, 2015, and the applicable three-year limitations periods expired in April 2018. The court considered whether Jones’s use of the prison grievance process could equitably toll, or pause, the limitations period. It concluded that any possible tolling could extend the deadlines only to July 21 and July 29, 2018, at the latest, while the proposed amended complaint was dated April 22, 2020.

The court also considered New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 1024, which can allow a plaintiff to substitute the true name of an initially unknown defendant. The court held that Jones had not shown the required diligence before the limitations period expired. His personal-injury claim to the New York City Comptroller did not show that he sought the officers’ identities, and the court’s order requiring the City to identify the officers was issued after the original limitations deadlines. The court therefore found that the proposed substitution could not relate back to the original complaint.

The court granted leave to add the June 1, 2015 allegation against Dr. Segal. Dr. Segal argued that she did not see Jones on that date and that records would prove it. The court held that factual disputes about whether the allegation was true were not a proper basis to deny amendment. Dr. Segal could challenge the allegation later through a motion for summary judgment or at trial.

The court summarized the result as granting Jones’s motion for leave to amend in part and denying it in part. It directed the clerk to docket the proposed amended complaint while omitting the newly named correctional officers and the allegations identifying them as defendants. The substantive allegations about the officers would remain because they could be relevant to Jones’s claims against the City under the municipal-liability doctrine associated with Monell v. Department of Social Services.

Motion to Extend Discovery

The court denied Jones’s motion to extend discovery. Jones wanted additional information about the roles of the newly named correctional officers in the strip-search incidents, but he did not explain what specific information he sought or why it could not have been obtained before discovery closed. The court also found reopening discovery unwarranted because it had denied leave to add those officers as defendants.

The court noted that Dr. Jorge Villalobos had been served and would presumably appear as a defendant. The parties were directed to discuss whether his appearance required additional discovery, and the City was ordered to report the outcome. If no additional discovery was needed, the parties were to propose a schedule for summary-judgment motions before Judge Broderick.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Jones’s motion to amend, denied his motion to extend discovery, directed docketing of the amended complaint without the proposed new defendants, and ordered the City to submit a status report within the period stated in the order.