Taylor v. Alcohol & Drug Recovery Center Inc et al
ORDER Approving and Adopting 35 Recommended Ruling.; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 9/13/11. (Glynn, T.)
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ALCOHOL & DRUG RECOVERY
Case No. 3:10-CV-319(RNC)
RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended ruling that the defendant’s motion to dismiss this
action be granted.
For reasons that follow, the recommended
ruling is approved and adopted over the plaintiff’s objection.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action against his
former employer alleging racial discrimination and retaliation in
violation of Title VII.
On November 12, 2009, the EEOC issued a
notice of rights to the plaintiff, informing him that he had 90
days from his receipt of the notice in which to file a complaint
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
Plaintiff states that
he received the notice on November 17, 2009.
statement as true, the deadline for filing his complaint was
February 15, 2010.
The Clerk received plaintiff’s complaint by
mail on February 19, 2010, outside the 90-day period.
complaint was not accepted for filing due to defects in the fee
Plaintiff subsequently corrected these
defects and his complaint was filed on March 3, 2010.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the action based on
plaintiff’s failure to file a complaint within the 90-day period
provided by statute.
Judge Martinez has recommended that the
motion to dismiss be granted.
In his objection to the
recommended ruling, plaintiff asks the Court to apply equitable
tolling on the ground that he undertook to file the complaint in
a timely manner by placing it in a mailbox on February 10, 2010.
He alleges that mail pickup and delivery in his neighborhood is
subject to delays.
Alternatively, he asks for a hearing as to
delays in mail service in his neighborhood.
As Judge Martinez’s recommended ruling explains, equitable
tolling may be applied only in “rare and exceptional
Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir.
To obtain equitable tolling, plaintiff must show that he
was prevented from filing a timely complaint due to the fault of
See Stephens v. Salvation Army, No. 04 Civ. 1697, 2006
WL 2788245, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2006).
I agree with
Judge Martinez that plaintiff has not made this showing.
With regard to plaintiff’s request for a hearing, I do not
think a hearing on delays in mail service in plaintiff’s
neighborhood is warranted.
To obtain equitable tolling, it is
not enough for plaintiff to show that others have experienced
delays and complained to the Postal Service.
Rather, he must
offer evidence to corroborate his claim that he put the complaint
in the mailbox on February 10, 2010, and the Postal Service
failed to deliver it to the Clerk until nine days later.
is no indication that plaintiff has such corroborating evidence.
Plaintiff urges that his complaint should not be dismissed
because his claims against the defendant are valid.
There is a
strong policy favoring adjudicating Title VII claims on the
When a complaint is filed outside the 90-day statutory
period, however, the law requires that the action be dismissed
unless equitable tolling applies.
As discussed above, equitable
tolling is restricted to “rare and exceptional circumstances.”
This stringent standard requires that the action be dismissed,
even though it means plaintiff’s claims are not adjudicated on
Accordingly, the recommended ruling is hereby approved and
adopted and the action is dismissed.
So ordered this 13th day of September 2011.
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?