Homer v. Doe

Background

Michael Homer, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, sued John or Jane Doe, M.D., and Superintendent Robert Morton, Jr., of Downstate Correctional Facility. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments during a medical examination at Downstate in September 2018. The court construed the claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy when a person acting under state authority violates federal rights. Homer sought money damages.

Homer alleged that he was required to remove clothing in an examination room whose curtains were open, without being given a gown or drape. He said he objected on religious grounds because he believed his body should not be exposed to anyone other than his wife and that physical contact outside marriage was prohibited. He alleged that the unidentified doctor proceeded with the examination, including an examination of his testicles, and discussed his medical history within earshot of other inmates and staff.

Screening analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the federal statutes requiring screening of prisoner complaints filed without prepayment of fees. It explained that a complaint may be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or invokes no federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court concluded that the § 1983 claims appeared to be barred by New York’s three-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. Because the alleged examination occurred in September 2018, the court said the claims accrued then and had to be filed by September 2021. The complaint was dated March 7, 2022, more than five months later. The court also said Homer provided no facts supporting equitable tolling, which is a narrow extension of a filing deadline in compelling circumstances.

The court separately held that Homer had not alleged facts showing Superintendent Morton’s direct personal involvement in, or awareness of, the events. A supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because he employs or supervises someone who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s rights.

Order

The court granted Homer leave to amend rather than dismissing the action at that stage. The amended complaint may reassert claims against the unidentified doctor, must allege facts showing Morton’s personal involvement, and must address the apparent limitations problem. The court instructed Homer to provide a short and plain statement of the facts, identify what each defendant did, state the relevant dates and locations, describe his injuries, and specify the relief sought. The amended complaint must completely replace the original complaint, so Homer must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider.

Homer was ordered to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 22-CV-2033 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated 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 an appeal.