holding that statute of limitations must be tolled while prisoner completes mandatory administrative exhaustion process under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to avoid the “catch-22” of dismissal based upon untimeliness
How later courts described this case
- holding that statute of limitations must be tolled while prisoner completes mandatory administrative exhaustion process under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to avoid the “catch-22” of dismissal based upon untimeliness
- holding that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations begins when a plaintiff first raises his administrative claim and ends when prison administrative remedies are deemed exhausted
- noting that “‘[c]ourts enjoy considerable discretion in deciding whether to transfer a case in the interest of justice’” pursuant to section 1406(a
- noting that without tolling, prison officials could “exploit the exhaustion requirement through indefinite delay in responding to grievances” (quoting Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the very thorough opinion of the Court, and I write separately to register my view that, at this juncture, it would not be premature to affirm the dismissal as to all of the defendants other than Warden Hasty, on the alternative ground that the allegations of conspiracy are conclusory and perfunctory.
It is sound craft to affirm on the alternative grounds, just as it is likewise sound for my colleagues to limit themselves to the grounds stated by the district court. At the same time, the conspiracy claims that link other officials and employees of the prison to the warden are wholly insufficient, and appear based on nothing but the fact that all of these people worked for Warden Hasty at some time or another. See, e.g., Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364, 369 (2d Cir.2011) (“It is well settled that claims of conspiracy ‘containing only conclusory, vague, or general allegations of conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights cannot withstand a motion to dismiss.’ ” (quoting Leon v. Murphy, 988 F.2d 303, 311 (2d Cir.1993))). I do not consider the allegations against Warden Hasty to be actually insufficient because Gonzalez was confined in SHU at MCC and MDC, and Warden Hasty was the warden at both prisons at the time the Gonzalez was so confined.