Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY

Background

Abraham Cruz, representing himself, originally sued three unnamed individuals concerning events at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC). The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York, and claims challenging Cruz’s 2015 conviction were severed and transferred back to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Cruz later filed the operative complaint against Suzanne Hastings, identified as the MCC warden; William Ryan, identified as an MCC psychiatrist; three McManus; another inmate; and three unnamed correctional officers. The opinion notes that Mannanleinn and Michael McManus may be the same inmate. Cruz alleged that, in October 2012, while he was incarcerated at the MCC for a competency evaluation connected to criminal proceedings, his cellmate assaulted him and left a bump on the back of his head. He further alleged that the defendants violated the Constitution by leaving him in the cell with that cellmate after an earlier incident involving a razor.

Motion and recommendation

Hastings and Ryan, the only defendants who had been served, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and dismissing the operative complaint without permission to amend. The recommendation concluded that Cruz’s claims, which arose in 2012, were barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to claims under Bivens—a cause of action for certain constitutional violations by federal officials. It also concluded that Cruz failed to state a claim even if the claims were not time-barred.

Cruz filed objections after receiving an extension. The district court found that the portions of the objections related to the recommendation were conclusory, duplicative, and not substantive. It therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Cruz’s claims with prejudice. It denied Cruz leave to file a fourth amended complaint.

The court separately ordered that the federal claims be dismissed with prejudice against defendants who had not yet been served. To the extent Cruz intended to assert state-law claims, those claims were dismissed without prejudice. Because the federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee. The clerk was directed to close the case.