Anekwe v. Bernstein
- Loretta Preska
- 1:21-cv-11108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Anekwe v. Bernstein, Judge Preska granted dismissal because Anekwe’s Section 1983 claims were untimely and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Peter Anekwe’s Section 1983 claims against Frederick Bernstein and Albert Acrish were dismissed with prejudice because the court found them untimely.
What happened
Anekwe v. Bernstein concerns Peter Anekwe’s claim that prison medical providers Frederick Bernstein and Albert Acrish failed to properly diagnose and treat a mass on his wrist. Anekwe, who represented himself, alleged that he was denied specialist care until September 2016, after which he had three surgeries but continued to experience limited wrist movement.
The defendants argued that Anekwe filed his civil-rights lawsuit too late. Anekwe argued that the deadline was extended while he pursued required prison grievance procedures and under New York’s COVID-19 emergency tolling orders. The court accepted those extensions for purposes of the motion but found that the complaint was still filed 14 days late.
Judge Preska granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under the rules governing jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court ruled that Anekwe’s claims accrued no later than September 8, 2016, and were barred by New York’s three-year limitations period even after applying the tolling periods.
The detailed version
- Anekwe v. Bernstein · No. 1:21-cv-11108
- Loretta Preska
- July 13, 2023
Background
Peter Anekwe, a New York State prisoner, sued Frederick Bernstein and Albert Acrish under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims against state actors who violate constitutional rights. Anekwe represented himself. The events involved treatment he received while confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
Anekwe alleged that in January 2009, Acrish examined a mass protruding from Anekwe’s right wrist and diagnosed it as a ganglion cyst. Anekwe alleged that he requested specialist care but that Acrish denied the request. Acrish prescribed pain medication and an elastic wrist brace. Bernstein, who was Green Haven’s medical director at the relevant time, signed permits allowing Anekwe to continue wearing the brace, the last dated May 16, 2016.
Anekwe later requested specialist care again. On September 8, 2016, he saw a specialist, Dr. MaGill, who allegedly determined that the wrist damage went beyond a ganglion cyst and required surgery. Anekwe underwent three wrist surgeries between January 2017 and August 2019, followed by physical therapy, but alleged that he continued to have limited wrist mobility.
Anekwe began the required prison grievance process on January 31,
- The highest administrative review body for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision denied his grievance on September 12,
- He delivered his complaint to the prison mail system on December 17,
- The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing, among other things, that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Statute of Limitations and Tolling
The court applied New York’s three-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims. It determined that Anekwe’s claims accrued on September 8, 2016, when he was accurately diagnosed by the specialist and knew of the injury underlying the lawsuit. The court rejected application of the continuing-violation doctrine because the defendants’ last alleged interactions with Anekwe occurred no later than July 2016. The court also stated that applying that doctrine would produce an earlier, not later, accrual date.
The court agreed that the limitations period was tolled while Anekwe pursued mandatory administrative remedies, from January 31, 2017, through September 12, 2018, a period of 589 days. The court also assumed, without deciding, that New York Executive Orders 202.8 and 202.67 provided an additional 228 days of tolling from March 20, 2020, through November 3, 2020.
Even after applying both tolling periods, the court calculated that Anekwe had to file by December 3, 2021. Because he delivered the complaint to the prison mail system on December 17, 2021, the court found that he filed 14 days after the limitations period expired.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The decision rested on the conclusion that Anekwe’s Section 1983 claims were untimely under New York’s three-year statute of limitations, even after applying the tolling periods the court considered. The court did not reach the underlying medical-treatment allegations on their merits.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.