Shomo v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff may allege continuing violation if at least one instance of deliberate indifference in a series occurred within limitations period
• holding that New York’s three-year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 actions arising in New York
• recognizing that \the continuing violation doctrine\ does not apply to an excessive force claim where the plaintiff receives ongoing treatment for injuries suffered during the use-of-force incident
• concluding that the district court properly held that an ongoing policy existed for purposes of the continuing violation doctrine when the complaint suggested a pattern where staff refused to provide recommended treatments
• finding that, under Morgan, the continuing violation doctrine “can apply when a prisoner challenges a series of acts that together comprise an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs”
• holding the doctrine inapplicable to individual-defendant claim in the absence of any “indication that [the plaintiff could] allege acts involving [that defendant falling] within the three-year statutory period”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).