Lilly v. Town of Lewiston et al
Filing
13
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-ORDER granting defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 7 . The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment for defendants and terminate the action. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 3/31/14. (LAS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EDWARD M. LILLY,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
14-CV-0001-A
v.
TOWN OF LEWISTON, and
LAUREN PASSANESE CAMPBELL,
Defendants.
The Town of Lewiston and Lauren Passanese Campbell (collectively, the
“Defendants”) move to dismiss claims of Plaintiff Edward Lilly, made pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, that the Defendants deprived him of constitutional rights
by filing a false incident report. The Court has considered the parties’ pleadings and
concludes oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons stated below, the motions
to dismiss are granted.
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2009, Town of Lewiston Police Department Officer Lauren
Passanese Campbell (“Officer Campbell”) filled out an incident report (the “Incident
Report”) in response to a complaint she received from Lewiston resident Melissa
Murphy (“Murphy”). Compl. ¶ 13. According to the Incident Report, Murphy called
the Town of Lewiston Police Department complaining that two persons had driven
through her neighborhood placing “fake newspaper[s]” in area mailboxes. Compl.
¶ 13, Ex. A at p. 3. Murphy provided Officer Campbell with the vehicle's license
plate number. Compl. ¶¶ 13-14. Officer Campbell used the license plate number to
obtain information identifying the vehicle. Compl. ¶ 14. Officer Campbell then filled
out the Incident Report naming Plaintiff as a suspect, and describing the incident as
an act of littering. Compl. Ex. A at p. 2.
Plaintiff Lilly asserts that Officer Campbell identified him as a suspect without
“any factual foundation to determine [he] was the alleged perpetrator of the littering
charge as alleged in the incident report.” Compl. ¶ 24. To support this claim,
Plaintiff quotes an answer Murphy gave in a separate action that “[a]t no point did I
ever mention the Plaintiff's name or implicate him in the unsolicited delivery . . . nor
did I state that anybody was littering.” Compl. ¶ 22. The separate action involved a
lawsuit Plaintiff brought accusing Murphy of slander and libel. Compl. Ex. B. at p. 7.
In December of 2009, a local newspaper, the Niagara Falls Reporter, relied on the
Incident Report to report that the Plaintiff was suspected on littering charges.
Compl. ¶ 68. The Plaintiff suggests that Officer Campbell filed the Incident Report
in retaliation for a series of events involving the Plaintiff, his family and friends, the
Lewiston Police, and the New York State Police, which occurred between 2007 and
2010. Compl. ¶ 66.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court will
“constru[e] the complaint liberally, accept[] all factual allegations in the complaint as
true, and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Goldstein v.
Pataki, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2008). However, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
2
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546 (2007)). The plaintiff must “provide the grounds upon
which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Goldstein, 516 F.3d at 56 (quoting ATSI Commc'ns.,
Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007)).
DISCUSSION
Claims under section 1983 and section 1985 of Title 42 that arise in New York
are subject to a three year statute of limitations. Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of
Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 331 (2d Cir. 1997); Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 871 (2d
Cir. 1994). This limitations period is a creature of state law, matching the state’s
statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296
F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2002). While state law determines the relevant limitations
period, “[f]ederal law determines when a federal claim accrues.” Id. at 80.
Under federal law, a claim accrues at the time of injury. See, e.g., Kronisch v.
United States, 150 F.3d 112, 121 (2d Cir. 1998). But “where plaintiff would
reasonably have had difficulty discerning the fact or cause of injury at the time it was
inflicted, the so-called ‘diligence-discovery rule of accrual’ applies.” Id. The
discovery rule delays accrual until the date the “plaintiff kn[ew] or ha[d] reason to
know of the injury which is the basis of his action.” Veal v. Geraci, 23 F.3d 722, 724
(2d Cir. 1994). “The reference to ‘know[ledge] of the injury’ does not suggest that
the statute does not begin to run until the claimant has received judicial verification
3
that the defendants’ acts were wrongful.” Id. (quoting Woods v. Candela, 13 F.3d
574, 575-76 (2d Cir. 1994)). The claim accrues instead when a plaintiff “had reason
to suspect” that a discriminatory act has occurred. Singh v. Wells, 445 F. App'x at
377. Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted that “the proper focus is on the time of
the discriminatory act, not the point at which the consequences of the act become
painful.” Morse v. Univ. of Vermont, 973 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting
Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8 (1981)).
The continuing violation doctrine provides another exception to the usual
accrual date. Corona Realty Holding, LLC. v. Town of North Hempstead, 382 F.
App'x 70, 72 (2d Cir. 2010). A plaintiff may delay accrual if he shows that he was
subjected to an “ongoing policy of retaliation.” See Smith v. New York City Dep't of
Educ., No. 12-1004-cv, 2013 WL 1831665, at *1 (2d Cir. May 2, 2013). Put another
way, “[w]hen a plaintiff experiences a ‘continuous practice and policy of
discrimination . . . the commencement of the statute of limitations period may be
delayed until the last discriminatory act in furtherance of it.” Jaghory, 131 F.3d at
331 (quoting Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 703 (2d Cir. 1994)).
The timeliness of the Plaintiff Lilly's claims hinges on when they accrued.
Since the Complaint was not filed until January 2, 2014, any claims accruing before
January 2, 2011 (three years prior) are time-barred. The Plaintiff suggests that he
did not know that Officer Campbell had falsified the Incident Report until January 7,
2011, when Melissa Murphy filed an answer in the separate libel action stating she
never identified the Plaintiff as the person leaving “fake newspapers” in area
4
mailboxes. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 20-24.
Plaintiff Lilly misconstrues the discovery rule. The discovery rule does not
require the Plaintiff to have received verification of the a legal theory of recovery for
his injuries. Instead, the discovery rule sets the accrual date at the point where the
Plaintiff should have reasonably known of the injuries forming the basis of his
claims. Here, Officer Campbell filed the Incident Report on December 2, 2009.
Compl. ¶ 13. That same month, the Niagara Falls Reporter printed an article stating
that “the Plaintiff was the suspect in the littering charge.” Compl. ¶ 68. While it
cannot be inferred, at this stage, that the Plaintiff actually read that issue of the
Niagara Falls Reporter, he certainly had reason to suspect the Incident Report was
false by November 30, 2010, when he sued Murphy for slander and libel for
statements implicating him in the alleged littering. Compl. Ex. B, p. 7; Ex. C, p. 11,
¶¶ 9-11.
Plaintiff Lilly has alleged nearly three years’ of “malicious[]” and “deliberate”
police misconduct that gave rise to his injuries. Compl. ¶¶ 66, 72, 75, 78. The
Complaint provides that “there was a long term animosity between Ben Campbell
(Defendant Lauren Campbell's Husband) going back at least as far as Thanksgiving
2007.” Comp. ¶ 25 (parenthetical in original). It goes on to allege that at a school
board meeting in the summer of 2008, the Defendant “inappropriately accosted and
badgered the Plaintiff.” Compl. ¶ 38. In April or May of 2009, “the Defendant
followed the Plaintiff around the Morgan Farms neighborhood . . . in her Town of
Lewiston patrol car.” Compl. ¶ 42. The Plaintiff also claims that he was woken late
5
at night by state troopers and Lewiston police. Compl. ¶ 53. The last incident that
that could implicate the Defendants occurred on June 2, 2010, when a New York
State Police Inspector told the Plaintiff that his future calls would not be accepted.
Compl. ¶ 67.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the series of incidents as
alleged in the Complaint established an “ongoing policy” sufficient to invoke the
continuing violation doctrine, all of the alleged discriminatory acts occurred before
the end of 2010. See Compl. ¶¶ 1-70. Thus, construing the allegations of the
Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff Lilly, his injuries accrued no later
than June 2, 2010. By that point, he certainly had reason to suspect that the
Defendants’ alleged discriminatory conduct had occurred. If he had approached an
attorney at that time, reasonable diligence would have allowed him timely to file suit.
However, the Plaintiff did not sue until January 2, 2014, more than three years later.
Because the statute of limitations for Section 1983 and Section 1985 claims is three
years, Jaghory, 131 F.3d at 331, the Plaintiff's claims are time-barred.
In response to the motion to dismiss of Defendants, Plaintiff Lilly argues the
Court should equitably toll the statute of limitations. He asserts Officer Campbell
fraudulently concealed her alleged misconduct. Equitable tolling will apply only in
“rare and exceptional circumstances, where . . . [it is shown] extraordinary
circumstances prevented a party from timely performing a required act, and that the
party acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period he sought to toll.”
Walker v. Jastremski, 430 F.3d 560, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) The Court has considered
6
Plaintiff’s equitable tolling argument and finds it to be without merit. Compare
Complaint Ex. A, p. 3, with Ex. C, pp. 12-13, ¶¶ 9-11. There is no reason plaintiff
could not have filed the action timely if he had acted with reasonable diligence.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motions of Defendants Town of Lewiston and
Lauren Passanese Campbell to dismiss the Complaint are granted. The Clerk shall
enter judgment for Defendants and terminate the action.
SO ORDERED.
____Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: March 31, 2014
7
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?