Pryor v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-00162
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Pryor v. Doe, Judge Swain found the claims apparently untimely but granted Daivon Pryor 60 days to amend.
Daivon Pryor, a self-represented incarcerated plaintiff, received permission to amend his complaint; the defendants remained named in the action, but the court did not decide the merits of Pryor's claims.
What happened
In Pryor v. Doe, Daivon Pryor alleged that a medical examination while he was in custody at Downstate Correctional Facility violated his constitutional privacy rights and religious beliefs. He sued a doctor identified as John or Jane Doe, Superintendent Robert Morton, Jr., and Downstate Correctional Facility under a federal civil-rights law.
The court found that the claims appeared to be filed too late because the examination occurred in April 2018, while the complaint was dated January 3, 2022. The court noted that Pryor had not provided facts supporting an extension of the filing deadline, but it did not dismiss the complaint at this stage.
Judge Swain granted Pryor permission to file an amended complaint within 60 days, requiring him to repeat any facts or claims he wanted to preserve and address timeliness. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal and warned that failure to amend could lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim.
The detailed version
- Pryor v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-00162
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 31, 2022
Background
Daivon Pryor, who was incarcerated, filed this self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants violated rights protected by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments during a medical examination at Downstate Correctional Facility in April 2018. Pryor alleged that he was required to remove clothing down to his boxer shorts and socks in an examination room whose curtains remained open, was not given a gown or drape, and could be seen and heard by other people. He also alleged that the doctor examined his body, including placing hands under his shorts to check his testicles. Pryor stated that he is Rastafarian and believes he must not be naked in front of anyone other than his wife. He sought monetary damages.
Screening and timeliness
The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review certain prisoner complaints and dismiss those that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court concluded that the claim appeared to be barred by the statute of limitations. Section 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year limitations period, and the court determined that Pryor's claim accrued when the examination occurred in April 2018. Because the complaint was dated January 3, 2022, the court found that it was filed more than eight months after the limitations period ended. The court also stated that Pryor had supplied no facts supporting equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances.
Ruling
Rather than dismissing the complaint immediately, the court granted Pryor leave to amend. The amended complaint had to be filed within 60 days, comply with the court's requirements, and address the timeliness issue. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Pryor had to repeat any facts or claims he wished to retain. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and warned that failure to comply, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.