Morrow v. Janis

Background

Neb Morrow, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, sued Marc Janis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Morrow alleged that Janis was deliberately indifferent to his pain while performing a prostate biopsy on May 28, 2019. According to the amended complaint, Janis did not provide anesthesia or numbing medication before taking twelve tissue samples. Morrow alleged that he experienced extreme pain, tremors, and difficulty moving after the procedure, and that he later received two Percocet and stayed overnight in the facility’s infirmary. He sought money damages.

Morrow was representing himself. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and was required to screen his prisoner complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Statute of limitations

The court explained that § 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year limitations period and ordinarily accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury. Morrow’s alleged injury occurred during the biopsy on May 28, 2019, but he did not file the original complaint until April 17, 2023—more than three years later.

The court considered whether the deadline could be extended through equitable tolling, which allows a limitations period to be extended in limited circumstances to prevent unfairness. The court stated that Morrow had not alleged facts supporting equitable tolling. It therefore concluded that his § 1983 claims were time barred. The opinion also noted that even if Morrow intended to assert a state-law medical-malpractice claim, the limitations period for his § 1983 claims remained three years.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim because it was untimely. Because Morrow was representing himself and might be able to allege facts showing that his claims were timely or that equitable tolling applied, the court granted him 60 days to file a second amended complaint. That complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the amended complaint and had to include all facts and claims Morrow wanted the court to consider.

The court instructed Morrow to provide facts identifying the people involved, describing what each person did or failed to do, stating when and where events occurred, describing his injuries, and identifying the relief sought. The court warned that failure to comply within the permitted time, absent good cause, could lead to entry of judgment consistent with the order. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.