Rodriguez v. Griffin et al

Filing 14

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to revise the docket to identify defendant "Guzman" as "Gusman;" and defendant "Ms. Anndola, Nurse" as "Anandolas, Doctor." ORDERED that this action is time-barred and is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 10/5/15. (served via regular mail on plaintiff)(alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOSE RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
9:15-CV-0610
(MAD/TWD)

v.
THOMAS GRIFFIN; et al.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
JOSE RODRIGUEZ
96-A-0803
Plaintiff, pro se
Shawangunk Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 700
Wallkill, NY 12589
MAE A. D'AGOSTINO
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") was commenced

by pro se plaintiff Jose Rodriguez seeking relief for the alleged violation of his constitutional
rights during his confinement at Eastern NY Correctional Facility ("Eastern C. F."). See Dkt.
No. 1 ("Compl.").
In a Decision and Order filed July 22, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's in forma
pauperis application and considered the sufficiency of his complaint in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Dkt. No. 7 ("July Order"). On the basis of that
review, the Court found that the complaint appeared to be barred by the three year statute of

limitations applicable to actions pursuant to Section 1983 and was, therefore, subject to
dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 5-8. In light of
his pro se status, prior to dismissing this action the Court afforded plaintiff the opportunity to
file an amended complaint demonstrating the timeliness of his claims and/or presenting any
meritorious tolling arguments. Id. at 8-9 (citing Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 640 (2d Cir.
2007)).
Plaintiff's amended complaint is before this Court for review. Dkt. No. 11 ("Am.
Compl.").
II.

DISCUSSION
As alleged in the original complaint, beginning in approximately January 2011, plaintiff

experienced serious symptoms (including severe headaches) for which defendants failed to
provide proper and adequate evaluation and treatment. Compl. at 5-6. Plaintiff further
alleged that medical staff at Eastern C.F. "failed to accept the consultation of outside
providers" and failed to provide a bilingual interpreter to insure that his medical needs were
being met. Id. at 8-9, 11. On February 16, 2012, plaintiff was rushed from Eastern C.F. to
Albany Medical Center, having suffered a "Cerebral Stroke." Id. Plaintiff suffered permanent
paralysis to his left side and is confined to a wheelchair. Id. at 12. The complaint named
several medical providers at Eastern C.F. as defendants, as well as Eastern C.F. Supt.
Griffin. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff sought an award of damages. Id. at 14.
Upon review, because the lack of proper and adequate medical care at Eastern C.F.
complained of by plaintiff occurred at the latest in February 2012, the Court found that the
three year limitations period for asserting those claims expired three years later in February

2

2015, several months before this action was commenced. July Order at 6-8.1 Because it did
not appear that the limitations period was subject to equitable tolling, or that the continuing
violation doctrine applies to plaintiff's claims, the Court concluded that complaint was subject
to dismissal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
In his amended complaint, plaintiff restates his allegations regarding the alleged
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by medical providers at Eastern C.F.
from December 2010 through February 2012. Am. Compl. at 1-10.2 Upon review, and with
due regard for plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, the Court finds that plaintiff has not set
forth in the amended complaint any facts regarding his failure to timely file this lawsuit which
even suggest that either the continuing violation doctrine or the doctrine of equitable tolling is
applicable to his claims. Plaintiff does not allege that any of the defendants were involved in
or responsible for his medical care subsequent to February 16, 2012, nor does he claim that
although he pursued his rights diligently, an extraordinary circumstance prevented him from
timely commencing this action. See July Order at 6-7.
As a result, the Court finds that plaintiff's claims are time-barred and subject to
dismissal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
III.

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby

1

Plaintiff signed his complaint on May 6, 2015. Compl. at 14.

2

In the course of preparing his amended complaint, plaintiff obtained additional information regarding
the names of his medical providers at Eastern C.F. Based upon that information, the Clerk is directed to revise
the docket to identify defendant "Guzman" as "Gusman;" and defendant "Ms. Anndola, Nurse" as "Anandolas,
Doctor." See Am. Compl. at 4.

3

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to revise the docket to identify defendant
"Guzman" as "Gusman;" and defendant "Ms. Anndola, Nurse" as "Anandolas, Doctor;" and it
is further
ORDERED that this action is time-barred and is DISMISSED with prejudice in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on plaintiff by
regular mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2015
Albany, NY

4