United States Second Circuit

In an action claiming medical indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, district court judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the continuing violation doctrine can apply to Eighth Amendment claims of medical indifference brought under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 when the plaintiff shows an ongoing policy of deliberate indifference to his or her serious medical needs and some acts in furtherance of the policy within the relevant statute of limitations period; 2) the court properly granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint in order to state timely Eighth Amendment claims based on the continuing violation doctrine; 3) the court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice as to certain defendants; 4) plaintiff is granted leave to replead his claims against named and unnamed supervisors and replead his municipal liability claim against the City; and 5) plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are remanded as the court did not address whether the continuing violation doctrine applied to plaintiff's disability discrimination claims.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/01/2009
• Decided 08/13/2009
• Published 08/13/2009

Judges

• Before JACOBS, Chief Judge, and POOLER, Circuit Judge.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Lee G. Dunst, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Suzanne K. Colt, Assistant Corporation Counsel, (Pamela Seider Dolgow, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the brief), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.