Martinez v. City of New York

S.D. New York

Martinez v. City of New York

476 F. Supp. 2d 330, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42969, 2007 WL 646208

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedFebruary 22, 2007

Docket06 CIV. 13649

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 476 F. Supp. 2d 330 (Martinez v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. City of New York, 476 F. Supp. 2d 330, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42969, 2007 WL 646208 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

Upon reviewing of the complaint of plaintiff Charles Martinez (“Martinez”) in this case the Court noted that plaintiff alleges that the false arrest and false imprisonment on assault charges upon which his claims herein are based occurred on July 30, 2002 and that the charges were dismissed on December 11, 2003. The Court construes Martinez’s claims as asserting claims for violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”). The statute of limitations for an action asserting false arrest/false imprisonment pursuant to § 1983 is three years, commencing from the date that plaintiff knew or objectively had reason to know of the alleged violation. See Jaghory v. New York State Dept. of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 331 (2d Cir.1997); Veal v. Geraci, 23 F.3d 722, 724 (2d Cir.1994). The date when charges are dismissed does not determine when the plaintiff obtains sufficient knowledge of the violation. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1091, — L.Ed.2d -, No. 05-1240 (2007) (holding that the limitations period for false imprisonment begins to run when the victim is no longer falsely imprisoned — ie., he becomes held pursuant to legal process — and not when charges against him are. dropped). Here, Martinez knew or had reason to know of the alleged false arrest he complains as of the date of the incident he describes — July 30, 2002. His complaint was filed on December 1, 2006, well in excess of the three-year limitation period, and gives no indication of any grounds that may support équitable tolling of the statute. See Walker v. Jastremski, 430 F.3d 560, 564 (2d Cir.2005); Doe v. Menefee, 391 F.3d 147, 159 (2d Cir.2004).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action, provided, however, that within twenty (20) days of this Order plaintiff may petition the Court to reopen the case upon showing good cause why the case was not commenced within the applicable statute of limitations period.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

Upon reviewing of the complaint of plaintiff Charles Martinez (“Martinez”) in this case the Court noted that plaintiff alleges that the false arrest and false imprisonment on assault charges upon which his claims herein are based occurred on July 30, 2002 and that the charges were dismissed on December 11, 2003. The Court construes Martinez’s claims as asserting claims for violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”). The statute of limitations for an action asserting false arrest/false imprisonment pursuant to § 1983 is three years, commencing from the date that plaintiff knew or objectively had reason to know of the alleged violation. See Jaghory v. New York State Dept. of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 331 (2d Cir.1997); Veal v. Geraci, 23 F.3d 722, 724 (2d Cir.1994). The date when charges are dismissed does not determine when the plaintiff obtains sufficient knowledge of the violation. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1091, — L.Ed.2d -, No. 05-1240 (2007) (holding that the limitations period for false imprisonment begins to run when the victim is no longer falsely imprisoned — ie., he becomes held pursuant to legal process — and not when charges against him are. dropped). Here, Martinez knew or had reason to know of the alleged false arrest he complains as of the date of the incident he describes — July 30, 2002. His complaint was filed on December 1, 2006, well in excess of the three-year limitation period, and gives no indication of any grounds that may support équitable tolling of the statute. See Walker v. Jastremski, 430 F.3d 560, 564 (2d Cir.2005); Doe v. Menefee, 391 F.3d 147, 159 (2d Cir.2004).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action, provided, however, that within twenty (20) days of this Order plaintiff may petition the Court to reopen the case upon showing good cause why the case was not commenced within the applicable statute of limitations period.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 F. Supp. 2d 330, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42969, 2007 WL 646208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack