Untimely claim means transgender inmate cannot sue corrections officer for sexual assault

In this case, a transgender prison inmate sues a corrections officer, alleging serial sexual assault. She brought the case nearly seven years after this abuse, which prompts the officer to file a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled due to the paralyzing effects of the abuse. The Court of Appeals rejects her claim.

The case is Clark v. Hanley, issued on December 20. In order to assess plaintiff's argument that her trauma prevented her from bringing a timely suit, the district court held an evidentiary hearing, following which the court found that plaintiff's testimony was not credible. "The district court concluded that neither of Clark’s stated reasons for failing timely to bring suit—her alleged fear of retaliation or the trauma from Hanley’s abuse, as aggravated by Clark’s gender dysphoria—caused her years-long delay in bringing this action."

On appeal, the Second Circuit (Livingston and Kahn) holds that the district court properly convened such an evidentiary hearing and that the bench hearing did not deprive plaintiff of her Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Plaintiffs can seek equitable tolling for untimely lawsuits, but the courts have made it difficult to win such an argument, noting these are "rare and exceptional circumstances" "where necessary to prevent unfairness to a plaintiff who is not at fault for her lateness in filing." The Court holds as follows: the district court was allowed to resolve this issue following an evidentiary hearing before the judge and not a jury. The Second Circuit observes that "evidentiary hearings exploring the merits of equitable tolling claims are routine in the district courts." The district court did nothing wrong in not converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, as that "would have served no practical purpose in the context of this case."

Judge Chin dissents. While he agrees the district court was able to conduct an evidentiary hearing into the equitable tolling issues, he further writes that the district court should have -- but did not -- allow plaintiff any discovery into this issue prior to the hearing. As such, "Perhaps because the district court did not hear directly from the healthcare providers who worked with Clark, did not consider affidavits or deposition testimony from the prisoners and corrections officials who knew her, and did not have before it any expert testimony, the district court minimized the harm Hanley inflicted on her and found that aspects of Clark's testimony were 'neither plausible nor credible.'"

Judge Chin further writes that "to the extent the judgment rests on factual findings about the severity of Hanley's conduct and its effect on Clark, those findings were not the district court's to make. The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees Clark the right to have matters that go to the heart of her legal claims be decided by a jury. The district court's findings deprived Clark of her right to present those issues to a jury."