Griffin v. Laponte et al
Filing
34
ORDER denying 26 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. See attached Ruling and Order for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 1/17/2018. (Chenoweth, T.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DWAYNE GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
v.
RON LABONTE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:15-cv-1667(RNC)
RULING AND ORDER
The third amended complaint alleges that since 2005
plaintiff has been denied surgery to correct a painful knee
condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The four
defendants are Health Services Administrator Ron Labonte,1
Nurse Cynthia L’Huereax, Dr. Ilona Figueroa and Dr. Johnny
Wu.
The defendants have moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the
three-year statute of limitations.
Plaintiff responds that
the continuing violation doctrine applies.
Defendants have
not sustained their burden of establishing that the action
is time-barred, so the motion is denied without prejudice.
The third amended complaint, generously construed,
alleges the following facts.
In June 2005, plaintiff was
evaluated by an orthopedic specialist for severe knee pain
caused by degenerative changes.
The specialist recommended
surgery to prevent further degeneration.
Administrator
Labonte and Dr. Figueroa denied funding for surgery.
1
The case caption misspells this defendant’s name as “LAPONTE.”
Clerk is requested to correct the caption.
As an
The
alternative, plaintiff was prescribed a knee brace and
cortisone injections.
He was subsequently transferred to
Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center, where he has
repeatedly requested an evaluation by the facility’s doctor.
His requests have been refused by Nurse L’Huereax.
Dr. Wu,
who has succeeded to the position of Health Services
Administrator, continues to deny plaintiff corrective
surgery.
A claim for damages under § 1983 accrues when the
plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the injury which
is the basis of his action.”
509, 518 (2d Cir. 2013).
Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d
Plaintiff knew or had reason to
know of the alleged deliberate indifference beginning in
2005.
However, the continuing violation doctrine may
preserve an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate
indifference when the complaint alleges a series of acts
that together comprise a constitutional violation.
Shomo v.
City of New York, 579 F.3d 176, 181-82 (2d Cir. 2009).
In
order for the doctrine to apply, the complaint must allege
an ongoing policy of deliberate indifference and non-timebarred acts in the furtherance of that policy.
Id. at 182.
In this case, the third amended complaint may be construed
to allege an ongoing policy of deliberate indifference to
the plaintiff’s need for corrective surgery and a series of
2
acts and omissions in furtherance of that policy.
Given the length of time that passed between plaintiff’s
visit to the specialist in 2005 and the date he filed this
suit in 2015, the action may well be time-barred as to some
or all of the defendants.
But defendants have not shown
that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply.
Because it is a defendant’s burden to establish that a claim
is time-barred, the motion to dismiss is denied without
prejudice to renewal.
See Cutting v. Down East Orthopedic
Assocs., P.A., No. 1:16-cv-582-JAW, 2017 WL 4386963, at *11
(D. Me. Sept. 30, 2017) (denying motion to dismiss when
record unclear as to whether continuing violation doctrine
applied); Wong v. Bann-Cor Mortg., 878 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1004
(W.D. Mo. 2012) (concluding that statute of limitations
issue would be better presented on motion for summary
judgment); Schonarth v. Robinson, No. 06-cv-151-JM, 2008 WL
510193, at *7 (D.N.H. Feb. 22, 2008) (deferring decision on
statute of limitations issue until after discovery).
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint is denied without prejudice.
So ordered this 17th day of January 2018.
/s/
Robert N. Chatigny, U.S.D.J.
3
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?