Bynum v. Doe

6 Citing cases

  1. Genao v. Rivera

    20 Civ. 10563 (GBD) (VF) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2024)

    The tolling period “amounted to a ‘pause' in the limitations period-that is, during the duration of the toll, the clock to file did not run, but ‘once the toll ended, the clock resumed from where it was when the toll began . . . .'” Id. (quoting Johnston v. City of Syracuse, No. 20 Civ. 1497, 2021 WL 3930703, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2021)).' ' One arrives to this October 31, 2022 date by first adding Executive Order 202.8's 227-day tolling period to March 16, 2022, which lands on Saturday, October 29, 2022 and then implementing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1)(C)'s mandate to “continue[] the limitations period ‘until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday,'” Bynum v. Doe, No. 16-CV-6332(KAM)(ST), 2019 WL 1259568, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019), which was Monday, October 31, 2022. This Court agrees with the Report that it is appropriate to construe Plaintiffs September 15, 2022 “request that the Court grant [him] ¶ 90 day extension to amend the complaint,” (Letter, ECF No. 34), as a motion to file an amended complaint. See, e.g., Adkins v. City of N.Y., No. 19 Civ. 3628 (GBD) (DF), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36556, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2020) (construing a pro se litigant's language contained in a letter in opposition to a motion to dismiss as a motion to amend).

  2. Cruz v. The Cnty. of Rockland

    21-CV-2073 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 2023)

    “Although § 1983 claims accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the harm . . . there remains some inconsistency in Second Circuit authority as to exactly when a false arrest claim accrues.” Bynum v. Doe, No. 16-CV-6332, 2019 WL 1259568, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019) (first citing Connolly v. McCall, 254 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 2001) and then citing Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 1980)) (determining that the plaintiff's false arrest claim accrued on the date of his arraignment, and not the date of his arrest). Here, there is no difference whether Plaintiff's federal false arrest claim accrued on the date of his arrest or his arraignment because it is undisputed that both occurred on May 20, 2014.

  3. Garland v. Carter

    22-CV-03462 (DG) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Under the “prison mailbox rule,” the operative filing date is the date on which the Complaint was delivered to prison officials for transmittal to the Court. See Bynum v. Doe, No. 16-CV-06332, 2019 WL 1259568, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019) (“[A] pro se prisoner's § 1983 complaint is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison officials for transmittal to the court.”); see also Dory v. Ryan, 999 F.2d 679, 682 (2d Cir. 1993), modified on other grounds, 25 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1994); Compl. at 5 (declaration reflecting that on May 23, 2022, Plaintiff delivered the Complaint to prison authorities to be mailed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York).

  4. Haughey v. Cnty. of Putnam

    18-CV-2861 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    “Although § 1983 claims accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the harm . . . there remains some inconsistency in Second Circuit authority as to exactly when a false arrest claim accrues.” Bynum v. Doe, No. 16-CV-6332, 2019 WL 1259568, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019) (first citing Connolly v. McCall, 254 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 2001); and then citing Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 1980)); see also Id. (determining that the plaintiff's false arrest claim accrued on the date of his arraignment, and not the date of his arrest).

  5. Turyants v. City of N.Y.

    18-CV-841 (PKC) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020)   Cited 7 times

    "[I]t is settled law in the Second Circuit that an ACD under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 170.55 is not a favorable outcome for purposes of malicious prosecution claims." Bynum v. Doe, No. 16-CV-6332 (KAM) (ST), 2019 WL 1259568, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019) (citing Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97, 103 (2d Cir. 2009); Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 193 (2d Cir. 1980)). Plaintiff's criminal proceeding terminated when she accepted an ACD on May 5, 2017.

  6. EZ Pawn Corp. v. City of New York

    16-CV-3852 (PKC) (SMG) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2019)   1 Legal Analyses

    ) See Bynum v. Doe, No. 16-CV-6332 (KAM) (ST), 2019 WL 1259568, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019) ("[I]t is settled law in the Second Circuit that an ACD under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 170.55 is not a favorable outcome for purposes of malicious prosecution claims."