Emmanuel Evariste v. Superintendent, Strafford County Department of Corrections & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2024-0112, Emmanuel Evariste v.
Superintendent, Strafford County Department of Corrections &
a., the court on October 25, 2024, issued the following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The plaintiff, Emmanuel Evariste, appeals the order of the
Superior Court (Will, J.) dismissing his claims against the defendants, the
Superintendent of the Strafford County Department of Corrections and the
Strafford County Department of Corrections, arguing that the trial court erred
in ruling that his claims are time-barred under the applicable statute of
limitations. We affirm.

The standard of review on a motion to dismiss is whether the plaintiff’s
factual allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would
permit recovery. Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., 160 N.H. 708, 711 (2010).
This threshold inquiry tests the facts alleged by the plaintiff in his pleadings
against the applicable law. Id. The trial court also may consider facts
established by documents attached to the plaintiff’s pleadings, and documents
whose authenticity no party disputes, such as public records or documents
referenced in the plaintiff’s pleadings. Id. Dismissal is required if the facts do
not constitute a basis for legal relief. Id. We assume the truth of the facts as
alleged in the plaintiff’s pleadings and construe all reasonable inferences from
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at
the Strafford County House of Corrections, he was attacked by another inmate,
and while defending himself, a sheriff’s officer approached and pepper sprayed
him directly in the eyes, causing blindness in his right eye. The plaintiff alleges
that he was taken to the medical room, where a male nurse “took a sw[i]ng at
[him]” to see if he was blind and knocked him unconscious. The plaintiff
alleges that he woke up with a concussion. He alleges that, in the following
days, he was taken to an eye doctor outside the facility for an examination.

In his motion to waive the statute of limitations, the plaintiff alleges that
the incident occurred “around the spring of 2020.” In an affidavit supporting
the motion, he notes that documents provided by the Stafford County Sheriff’s
Department show that the incident occurred on March 18, 2020. The plaintiff
filed his complaint on September 23, 2023, more than three years after the
alleged incident occurred.
 Under RSA 508:4, I (2010), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, all
personal actions, except actions for slander or libel, may be brought only
within 3 years of the act or omission complained of, except that when the
injury and its causal relationship to the act or omission were not discovered
and could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of the act or
omission, the action shall be commenced within 3 years of the time the plaintiff
discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the
injury and its causal relationship to the act or omission complained of.”

Since the plaintiff filed his complaint more than three years after his
cause of action arose, his claims are barred unless the discovery rule applies.
See Beane, 160 N.H. at 713. The discovery rule does not apply unless the
plaintiff proves that he did not discover, and could not reasonably have
discovered, either the alleged injury or its causal connection to the defendants’
alleged wrongful act or omission. Beane, 160 N.H. at 713. The plaintiff argues
that the discovery rule applies because he did not know the identities of the
responsible parties until September 2023, and because he did not initially
understand that his blindness was permanent.

The discovery rule “is not intended to toll the statute of limitations until
the full extent of the plaintiff’s injury has manifested itself.” Troy v. Bishop
Guertin High Sch., 176 N.H. 131, 136-37 (2023) (quotation omitted). “Rather,
that the plaintiff could reasonably discern that [he] suffered some harm caused
by the defendant’s conduct is sufficient to render the discovery rule
inapplicable.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Further, a plaintiff need not be certain
of this causal connection; the possibility that it existed will suffice to obviate
the protections of the discovery rule.” Beane, 160 N.H. at 713.

Although the plaintiff may not have known the name of the officer who
pepper sprayed him or the name of the nurse who hit him on the date these
incidents occurred, he had a sufficient understanding of their roles to file suit
against the defendants. And while he may not have known that the pepper
spray incident caused permanent blindness in one eye, he knew that the
incident caused an immediate loss of vision. Accordingly, we conclude that the
discovery rule does not apply, and that the trial court correctly ruled that the
plaintiff’s claims are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.
See id.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2