Hernandez v. City Of New York

Background

Ramon Hernandez alleged that City of New York officials and ten individual New York City Police Department and City employees stopped, questioned, searched, arrested, and detained him on February 5, 2015, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. He alleged that he was detained for twenty-one months, prosecuted without probable cause and on fabricated evidence, and released on November 15, 2016. The criminal proceedings ended with all charges dismissed on December 12, 2016.

Hernandez first filed a notice of claim with the City in February 2017 but did not appear at the required hearing. He then filed a state-court lawsuit in January 2018. That case was dismissed in its entirety on March 13, 2020, based on his failure to appear at the required hearing, and he did not appeal. Hernandez filed the present lawsuit in state court on February 15, 2021; the defendants removed it to federal court.

Claims and statute of limitations

The First Amended Complaint asserted twenty-one claims under federal and New York law. The federal claims included claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful search and seizure, false arrest and imprisonment, excessive force, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, denial of a fair trial and due process, denial of equal protection, civil-rights conspiracy, failure to prevent the conspiracy, failure to intervene, and municipal liability against the City. It also asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986, and sought attorney’s fees under § 1988.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that a claim may be dismissed at this stage when the complaint clearly shows that the filing deadline has expired.

For the § 1983 claims, the court applied New York’s three-year limitations period. It determined that the claims accrued no later than December 12, 2016, when the criminal proceeding ended, and that the limitations period expired on December 12, 2019. Because Hernandez first asserted the § 1983 claims in the present action on February 15, 2021, the court held that they were time barred. The court likewise held that the § 1981 and § 1985 claims were time barred under their three-year limitations periods and that the § 1986 claim was time barred under its one-year limitations period.

The court also rejected Hernandez’s reliance on New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 205(a), which can in some circumstances allow a new action after an earlier action ends. Even assuming that provision applied to the § 1983 claims, the court held that Hernandez filed the present action more than six months after the 2018 state action was dismissed.

State-law claims and disposition

After dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court also denied the request for attorney’s fees because the underlying claims were dismissed as time barred or under Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 34 and close the case.