Sher v. City Of New York

Background

Darrin Sher initially sued the City of New York and unidentified defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that on April 27, 2018, New York City Police Department officers John Hannagan and Erik Hansen beat him, arrested him, took him to a police station, and subjected him to a cavity search. He also alleged that the officers falsely told prosecutors that they had seen him participate in a drug transaction and attempt to dispose of evidence. The state criminal charges were unconditionally dismissed on August 1, 2018.

The original complaint named the City and unidentified defendants. Discovery provided through the Southern District of New York’s plan for certain § 1983 cases against the City identified Hannagan and Hansen as the arresting officers. Sher did not amend the complaint within the time allowed by that plan. After later requests and court orders, the court granted permission to amend on February 2, 2022. The order clarified that claims against the City and state-law claims were dismissed. Sher attempted to file the amended complaint on March 21, but the filing was rejected because the defendants were not properly selected in the electronic filing system. He successfully filed the First Amended Complaint later that day.

Claims and statute of limitations

The First Amended Complaint asserted five § 1983 claims against Hannagan and Hansen: unlawful search and seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and failure to intervene.

The court applied New York’s three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims. It determined that the excessive-force claim accrued on April 27, 2018; the unlawful-seizure, false-imprisonment, and false-arrest claims accrued no later than April 28, 2018, when Sher was arraigned; the malicious-prosecution claim accrued on August 1, 2018, when the charges were dismissed; and the failure-to-intervene claim accrued no later than the dates of the underlying violations.

New York’s COVID-19 emergency orders paused applicable deadlines for 228 days. Even with that extension, the claims that accrued in April 2018 expired by December 13, 2021, and the malicious-prosecution claim expired by March 17, 2022. The court rejected Sher’s calculation that the malicious-prosecution deadline extended to March 21, 2022, finding that he used August 2 rather than August 1 as the accrual date and counted one extra day in the tolling period. The court therefore concluded that all claims expired before Sher attempted to file the First Amended Complaint on March 21.

Relation back

Because the First Amended Complaint was filed after the limitations periods expired, the court considered whether the amendment could “relate back” to the original complaint. Under the federal rules, replacing unidentified defendants with named defendants ordinarily does not relate back merely because the plaintiff did not know their names. The court also considered New York’s relation-back rule, which required Sher to show both that he acted diligently to identify and name the officers before the deadline and that the original complaint described the intended defendants sufficiently.

The court found that Sher satisfied the description requirement because the original complaint identified the date, time, and location of the alleged incident. It nevertheless found insufficient diligence. Sher knew the officers’ identities no later than May 2021, did not use the case plan’s amendment procedure within the permitted period, waited until November to seek amendment, submitted proposed pleadings the court characterized as seriously flawed, did not file the motion required by the court, and waited approximately seven weeks after permission to amend before attempting to file the amended complaint. The court also noted that Hannagan and Hansen had not yet been served with a complaint giving them notice of the claims.

The court rejected Sher’s argument that the City had consented to adding the officers. It explained that the City did not represent Hannagan and Hansen and could not waive defenses for them. The court also found that the City had raised the limitations defense promptly after the First Amended Complaint was filed.

Disposition

The court dismissed Sher’s claims. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. The opinion also states that Sher’s claims against the City had been withdrawn or dismissed earlier, and that the remaining claims against Hannagan and Hansen were dismissed because they were barred by the statute of limitations and could not relate back to the original complaint.