Hamlett v. CITY OF NEW YORK
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05809
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Hamlett v. City of New York, Judge Swain ordered Hamlett to explain within 30 days why his civil-rights case should not be dismissed as untimely.
Shawn Hamlett and the named defendants; the case remained pending while Hamlett was given 30 days to explain why it should not be dismissed as time barred.
What happened
Shawn Hamlett, who is representing himself, sued the City of New York, the City of New York Department of Corrections, William Fraser, Captain Johnson, and Keith Guerrant. He alleges that officials improperly classified him as “Red I.D.” while he was detained on Rikers Island from 1998 to 2003, restricting his movement and causing injuries and missed court dates. He says an attorney advised him not to sue because he would receive money from a class-action settlement, but he never received the money.
The court said civil-rights claims under federal law generally must be filed within three years in New York. Based on Hamlett’s allegations, his claims became timely to file no later than June 2003, but he placed his complaint in the prison mailing system on June 25, 2023. The court said Hamlett had not shown facts supporting an exception that could extend the deadline.
Judge Swain did not dismiss the case at this stage. Instead, the court ordered Hamlett to file a declaration within 30 days explaining why the case should not be dismissed as time barred, including any facts supporting an extension of the deadline. The court also denied several motions as moot, denied his motions to serve the defendants, and said no summons would issue for now.
The detailed version
- Hamlett v. CITY OF NEW YORK · No. 1:23-cv-05809
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Shawn Hamlett, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning his security classification while detained on Rikers Island from March 1998 through June 2003. The defendants are the City of New York, the City of New York Department of Corrections, William Fraser, Captain Johnson, and Keith Guerrant.
Hamlett alleges that correctional staff designated him “Red I.D.” and placed him in enhanced restraints. He says the classification restricted his movement from April 1998 to June 2003, caused injuries, and caused him to miss court dates. He alleges that, in 2005, attorney John Boston told him he was a member of a class action concerning the Red I.D. procedures and would receive $20,000 from its settlement if he did not file his own lawsuit. Hamlett says he agreed not to sue but never received the settlement money or further communication from Boston.
The court had previously granted Hamlett permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court issued this order to give him an opportunity to explain why the action should not be dismissed as time barred.
Statute of Limitations
The court explained that § 1983 claims use New York’s three-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. Such a claim generally begins when the plaintiff knows, or has reason to know, of the injury underlying the claim.
The court concluded from Hamlett’s allegations that his classification claims accrued in June 2003. The three-year filing period therefore expired in June 2006. Hamlett placed his complaint in the prison mailing system on June 25, 2023—17 years after the limitations period expired.
The court considered whether equitable tolling could apply. Equitable tolling is a narrow exception that can extend a filing deadline in compelling circumstances to prevent unfairness. The court said Hamlett’s alleged inability to identify or locate Boston and the related lawsuits did not prevent him from filing his own lawsuit. The documents attached to his complaint also indicated that he began trying to locate information about the lawsuits in 2022, rather than in 2005 when he did not receive a settlement check.
Order
The court directed Hamlett to file a declaration within 30 days of the order explaining why the action should not be dismissed as time barred. The declaration should include any facts supporting equitable tolling. The order did not itself dismiss the action.
No summons would issue at that time. Hamlett’s motions seeking assignment of a judge, expedited proceedings, and permission to proceed without paying the filing fee were denied as moot. His motions seeking service of the complaint on the defendants were denied. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.