AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Defenses: Statute of Limitations
Sentenced to 300 days imprisonment for a probation violation, a trial court stated that a prisoner should be released in September 2013 after taking into account good-time credit. In August of 2013, however, jail personnel informed him that he would not be released until March 2014. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but jail personnel were claimed to have failed to transport him to court to litigate it. When it was finally heard on Dec. 16, 2013, the court ruled that he should have been released in September and he was immediately released on $50,000 bond, a bond released the next month. A federal civil rights lawsuit for false imprisonment resulted in judgment on the pleadings for the defendants. A federal appeals court affirmed. The plaintiff was released from prison over two years before he filed his lawsuit, so the claim was time-barred. The time he spent released on bond was not a continuation of his false imprisonment. Brown v. Dart, #16-4179, 2017 U.S. App. 24535 (7th Cir.).
A man sued the state of Nebraska and other defendants after his name and photo mistakenly appeared on the Nebraska State Patrol’s online sex offender registry. A federal appeals court ruled that even if the complaint was sufficient to state a negligence claim under the state Tort Claims Act, the claim was time barred under a two-year statute of limitations. A claim for unlawful takings failed, as he did not show that any property was taken or damaged for public use. Federal civil rights claims against state employees in their individual capacities were properly rejected because a mistake or lack of due care by state employees in these particular circumstances did not establish invidious or irrational treatment that could violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. Nebraska, #15-3680, 861 F.3d 785 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner caused a commotion in his
cell to object to what he thought were unreasonable restrictions on exercise
and telephone use. Several officers entered the cell, and allowed the
prisoner's cellmate to leave. The prisoner was told to remain facing the wall,
but turned his head away from the wall to speak to an officer. A Taser was then
fired in the dart mode into the prisoner's body. The prisoner claimed that the
officer "tricked" him into turning his head so as to create an excuse
to discharge the Taser and that the officer then continued to apply the Taser
to him for an unreasonable length of time although he offered no resistance or
provocation. He also claimed that, when he was escorted to the prison
infirmary, he was intimidated into signing a form which refused medical
treatment for the injuries he allegedly received as a result of the Taser
application. The court found that the prisoner's claims were time barred by a
one year statute of limitations. While the statute of limitations was tolled
(extended) while the prisoner pursued an administrative grievance over the incident,
more than one year elapsed after the grievance was resolved before he filed his
lawsuit. A state court filing seeking judicial review of the grievance did not
extend the time for filing the lawsuit as it did not assert his federal claim.
Cook v. Lamont, # 11-00358, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11138 (M.D. La.).
A trial court dismissed
a prisoner's lawsuit for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
as untimely because there was evidence that he had been aware of the
misdiagnosis of his condition more than two years before suing. A federal
appeals court ruled the prisoner's claim that he wwas physically incapacitated
for a time period that prevented him from filing suit within the two year
statute of limitations was at a minimum plausible, so that the trial court
should not have rejected it at any early stage in the lawsuit. Richards v.
Mitcheff, #11-3227, 696 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2012).
A former inmate claimed that she was sexually
assaulted by a corrections officer, and sued for intentional infliction of
emotional distress and negligent supervision. She claimed that her failure to
file her lawsuit within a two-year statute of limitations should be excused,
based on her alleged inability to pursue her legal remedies during her
imprisonment because of the officer's continuing threats. The court rejected
this, as the officer had not been employed at the facility for five years
before the lawsuit was filed. Gilley v. Ohio Reformatory for Women,
#2009-05030, 2010 Ohio Misc. Lexis 41 (Ct. of Claims).
The "continuing violation" doctrine applies
to Eighth Amendment claims of medical indifference brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 when a prisoner 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." Further
proceedings were required to consider whether that doctrine also applied to the
prisoner's federal disability discrimination claims. The case involves a
prisoner suffering from right arm paralysis and limited use of his left arm. He
claimed that, despite recommendations from a number of doctors, he was not
provided with assistance with "activities of daily living, transferred to
specialized infirmary housing, or provided with needed treatments." Shomo
v. City of New York, #07-1208, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18001 (2nd Cir.).
In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he was kept
in administrative segregation for an "indeterminate" time without
required review hearings, an appeals court found that, because of the sparse
facts in the record, it was hard to determine exactly when the prisoner's
segregation became so prolonged and restrictive to put him on notice, for
purposes of the statute of limitations, that he had a possible claim to assert,
so that dismissal on statute of limitations grounds was improper. Additionally,
the prisoner's claim that he tried to kill himself satisfied any requirement of
physical injury for an Eighth Amendment claim. The prisoner failed to properly
show a violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination
in the making of contracts, or of 42 U.S.C. Sec 1985(3) and 1986, since there
was no evidence that the defendants conspired to violate his constitutional
rights. He could proceed on his Eighth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983, as well as on claims concerning the denial of religious freedom, since
there was no information in the record concerning security concerns to justify
preventing the prisoner from attending services, nor was there information as
to whether individual religious counseling was available while he was in
administrative segregation. Arauz v. Bell, No. 08-5186, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
1370 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Oklahoma two-year statute of limitations applied
to and barred prisoner's claims that he was injured by guards in a privately
run prison during a disturbance that other inmates initiated. While the
contract between the corporation and that state indicated that Wisconsin law,
the site of the prison, governed the contract, the prisoner was not a party to
or a third-party beneficiary of the contract, and his lawsuit was not seeking
to enforce the contract, but instead claimed a violation of civil rights, so
the provisions of the contract were not relevant to whether or not the lawsuit
was timely. Malone v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. 07-3640, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 1153 (7th Cir.).
A federal prisoner's claim, arising from his
alleged exposure to tuberculosis following the failure to follow Bureau of
Prisons policies, accrued, for purposes of the statute of limitations, at least
by September 23, 2002, when he was first informed of his exposure. When he
first filed his lawsuit, only 14 days remained on the two-year statute of
limitations under Texas law. After the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice
for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required, the
statute of limitations was tolled (extended) while the prisoner pursued such
remedies. His refiling of the lawsuit was time barred, however, when he failed
to re-file it until five months had elapsed after he finished exhausting
available administrative remedies. Starks v. Hollier, No. 07-41085, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 21111 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner asserting claims against various
correctional employees for alleged failure to protect him from an assault by
another inmate was granted leave to amend his complaint to add a corrections
officer as an additional defendant. The officer was not identified by other
defendants until shortly before discovery closed in the case. Because this
officer was in a supervisory position, he allegedly should have been aware that
he would have been named in the lawsuit if the prisoner had known his name, so
that expiration of the statute of limitations did not bar his addition as a
defendant. Ward v. Taylor, No. 04-1391, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 40238 (D. Del.).
A prisoner knew of his alleged injuries from
inadequate medical treatment when it occurred in 1994 and 1995, and even filed
a state court medical malpractice lawsuit in 1996 based on the same conduct
that was the basis for his federal civil rights lawsuit. The current
lawsuit, filed in 2007, was therefore time barred under a two-year Pennsylvania
statute of limitations, and there was no evidence to support the
"tolling" (extension) of the statute of limitations. Fullman v.
Pa. Dept. of Corrections, No. 07-3967, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3401 (3rd Cir.).
While the trial court found that the prisoner's
escape from jail had been motivated by his fear that another inmate would take
his life, and that county officials had failed to protect him from that
prisoner, it also correctly found that his claims were barred by a two year
statute of limitations since it was filed over two years after his escape.
Additionally, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under a
grievance procedure that he was aware of. Schumacher v. Fannin County, No.
06-41498, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28943 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that correctional officials
violated his rights by confiscating and destroying publications he received
through the mail in retaliation for grievances he filed was barred by a statute
of limitations. The limitations period was not tolled (extended) by the
prisoner's claim that he lacked "knowledge of the law" at the time
that the alleged deprivation occurred. His alleged lack of knowledge that he
could file a lawsuit during the statute of limitations period was not relevant.
Royster v. Beard, No 1:CV-06-0842, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83833 (M.D. Pa.).
A Florida prisoner's dental malpractice claim
accrued in 1999 for purposes of a two-year state statute of limitations, since
he then knew that several root canals had failed, even if he did not learn the
exact reason for the failure until later. His malpractice claim, filed in 2002,
was therefore time-barred. The prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim alleging cruel
and unusual punishment could not be pursued against a federal agency under the
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2671-80, and accordingly was
properly also dismissed. Trupei v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 06-15005, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 14641 (11th Cir.).
A Pennsylvania prisoner's claims that a
correctional officer violated his Eighth Amendment rights by arbitrarily
denying him access to his cell and preventing him from using toilet facilities
were time barred when he filed them months after the expiration of a two-year
statute of limitations. Bagley v. Bourne, No. 06-3459, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
13081 (3rd Cir.).
Prisoner's initial mailing of a letter, titled
"Pro Se Complaint," to a federal court, alleging that correctional
officers used excessive force against him, should have been docketed by the
court when received on January, 26, 2006, and his lawsuit should therefore be
considered filed within the applicable Illinois two-year statute of
limitations, even though he failed to comply with court rules requiring him to
also enclose a filing fee or a petition to proceed as a pauper. Federal appeals
court rejects argument that his subsequently filed amended complaint was
time-barred. The sending of the original letter tolled (extended) the running
of the statute of limitations. Bahler v. Lopez, No. 06-2616, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 11195 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner's arguments that the statute of limitations
was "tolled" (extended) in his civil rights claims over alleged
physical assaults on him were without merit. Additionally, while the trial
court should have given him notice and an opportunity to be heard on his argument
that the statute of limitations should be considered extended before dismissing
the case, he did receive such notice and opportunity to be heard in further
proceedings the trial judge then conducted, making remand of the case from the
appeals court unnecessary. Abbas v. Kelly, No. 04-6219, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 4437 (2d Cir.).
When state officials allegedly delayed in
providing inmate information about two officers who confiscated his crutches
until after the two-year statute of limitations expired, he was entitled to the
tolling (extension) of the statute of limitations to pursue his claim that the
officers were responsible for his injuries from tripping over a mattress. He
would therefore be allowed to amend his complaint to add the officers' names.
Ogle v. Stewart, No. 04-17534, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 4040 (9th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that a county jail failed to
provide him with necessary medical treatment for injuries suffered in a car
accident was barred by a Florida four-year statute of limitations, since he
filed his lawsuit in federal court over ten years after the four-year period
expired. Even if he was entitled to tolling (extension) of the statute of
limitations during his detention in the county jail, he was required to filed
his lawsuit no later than June of 1995, but failed to file it until November of
2005. Gomez v. Doe, No. 06-10091, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 422 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
In New Jersey prisoner's lawsuit claiming that
prison officials conspired to keep him in prison beyond his maximum term, his
claim was time barred because it was filed after the expiration of a New Jersey
two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Additionally, the
fact that the prisoner had filed more than 50 lawsuits in the federal trial
court showed that he was not somehow prevented from filing his complaint in a
timely manner. Wakefield v. Moore, No. 06-1687, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30047 (3rd
Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner's federal civil rights claims were
barred by a two-year statute of limitations to the extent that they involved
events occurring from 1972 through September of 2001. Gay v. City of
Philadelphia, No. 05-4718, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26878 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
In prisoner's lawsuit claiming that jail
officials failed to protect him from a sexual assault, his claim was barred by
a two-year statute of limitations, since the alleged assault occurred in July
of 1987. While the prisoner claimed that the limitations period should be
tolled (extended) because he was mentally disabled, based on a 1998 finding of
mental disability for purposes of Social Security, there were no records
showing that he was disabled for the entire past 19 years in a manner leaving
him entirely without the ability to make or communicate decisions concerning his
affairs. Holtz v. Sheahan, No. 06-1785, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25514 (7th Cir.).
[N/R]
While an Indiana state statute sometimes allows
the "resuscitation" of refiled lawsuits that otherwise would be
barred under the statute of limitations, it did not apply in a prisoner's
lawsuit concerning his medical treatment and the alleged use of force against
him, when his earlier lawsuit was properly dismissed based on his failure to
exhaust his available administrative remedies, which constituted negligence in
the prosecution of the first lawsuit. He was therefore barred from pursuing his
refiled lawsuit. Thomas v. Timko, No. 3:06-CV-184, 428 F. Supp. 2d 855 (N.D.
Ind. 2006). [N/R]
Female prisoner could not pursue lawsuit over her
alleged gang rape by male prisoners over thirty years earlier. Her claims were
barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and it could not reasonably be
concluded that she was mentally ill from 1971 until 1996, thereby extending the
statute. Douglas v. York County, No. 05-1940, 433 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2005).
[2006 JB Apr]
Inmate's lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b) was properly dismissed as untimely when he failed
to file it within six months of the Bureau of Prisons' rejection of his application
for compensation for prison guards' alleged negligence in failing to protect
him from a beating by other inmates. Myles v. US , #02-3944, 2005 U.S. App.
Lexis 4646 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
Virginia two-year general statute of limitations
applied to plaintiff prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that
former prison employee threatened to report her for misconduct if she failed to
engage in sexual acts with him. A shorter one-year statute of limitations
governing lawsuits brought by inmates concerning the conditions of their
confinement was not applicable, and the prisoner's lawsuit was therefore
timely. The Virginia Supreme Court, in reaching this conclusion, relied on the
ruling in Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989) that courts considering Sec. 1983
claims should "borrow the general or residual" state statute of
limitations for personal injury actions. Billups v. Carter, No. 040268, 604
S.E.2d 414 (Va. 2004). [N/R]
A prisoner who suffered a loss of sight in one
eye knew of the delay in his medical treatment when three months intervened
between hospital visits for his eye injury after a fistfight. Accordingly, the
statute of limitations began to run after the second hospital visit. While the
prisoner sued the county sheriff within the one-year statute of limitations
period, he failed to add a doctor as a defendant until more than a year had
passed, so that his claim against the doctor and his insurer was barred.
McCafferty v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, No. 04-CA-205, 880 So.2d 84 (La.
App. 5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's civil lawsuit concerning alleged
improper confiscation of legal papers from his cell was regarded as filed when
he delivered it to prison officials for forwarding to the court, even though it
was ultimately not actually received by the court within the applicable
six-month statute of limitations period. Court also rules that lawsuits against
a public entity or public employee are governed by the six-month specific
statute of limitations rather than a longer statute of limitations applicable
to private defendants. Moore v. Twomey, No. C044749, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 163 (Cal.
App. 3d Dist. 2004). [N/R]
One-year statute of limitations for personal
injury lawsuits under Kentucky state law applied to a prisoner's declaratory
judgment action claiming that his due process rights had been violated during a
prison disciplinary hearing which found him guilty of violation of rules
concerning dangerous contraband. Million v. Raymer, No. 2002-SC-0205-DG, 136
S.W.3d 460 (Ky. 2004). [N/R]
Appeals court orders further proceedings on
whether woman should be allowed to proceed on lawsuit concerning her alleged
gang rape in county jail over thirty years ago. Plaintiff argued that the
statute of limitations should be extended because of her mental illness, and
trial court made improper inferences, in the appeals court's opinion, in ruling
on that issue. Douglas v. York County, No. 03-2086, 360 F.3d 286 (1st Cir.
2004). [2004 JB Aug]
"Mailbox rule," considering documents
filed with the court when submitted to correctional officials for mailing,
applied to a prisoner's lawsuit against county officials for allegedly failing
to protect him from physical attack by other prisoners in the county jail.
Lawsuit was therefore considered timely filed when presented to officials for
mailing within the applicable two-year statute of limitations, since the
plaintiff prisoner had no control over what happened to his papers once they
were submitted. Halladay v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of
Okmulgee, No. 99,801, 90 P.3d 578 (Okl. Civ. App. Div. 4 2004). [N/R]
Statute of limitations on prisoner's disability
discrimination claim based on his dismissal from prison job was tolled
(extended) under Pennsylvania state law during the time that a prison official
delayed filling out an administrative complaint form, even though the delay was
not intentional, but merely negligent. Limitations period was also extended
during the time that the prisoner pursued the exhaustion of his available
administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Howard v.
Mendez, 304 F. Supp. 2d 632 (M.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
Federal prisoner who claimed he lacked knowledge
of the identities of the correctional officials who were involved in the use of
excessive force against him and deliberate indifference to his medical needs
was not entitled to an extension of the applicable statute of limitations
within which to bring his lawsuit on the basis of "fraudulent
concealment," in the absence of any showing that any officials
deliberately concealed any information from him relating to his claims. Garrett
v. Fleming, #03-1143, 362 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Statute of limitations on former federal
prisoner's claim against the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346, 2671 et seq., for negligence in miscalculating
his release date began to run when he obtained habeas relief from his continued
incarceration, rather than on the date that the miscalculation was allegedly
made. Federal appeals court overturns dismissal of lawsuit as time-barred.
Erlin v. U.S., No. 00-16986, 364 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Plaintiff prisoner was not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing concerning claims that correctional officials stripped and
beat him, when claims were properly dismissed on the basis of sovereign
immunity and the statute of limitations. Cesspooch v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, No. 02-1538, 84 Fed. Appx. 30 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Further proceedings were required to determine
whether claim by heirs of juvenile detainee who died while participating in
exercises while incarcerated was barred by a statute of limitations or whether
the statute of limitations for filing a federal civil rights claim was extended
by their timely filing of a state law claim that arose out of the same factual
circumstances. Lucchesi v. Bar-O Boys Ranch, No. 02-17079, 353 F.3d 691 (9th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that he was not aware of his
legal rights and did not have access to an adequate law library, even if true,
did not have the effect under Tennessee state law of extending the statute of
limitations on his claims arising out of his arrest. Claims against state
employees were time barred by the statute. Simmons v. Gath Baptist Church, 109
S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. App. 2003). [N/R]
African-American prisoner's claim that parole
board chairman improperly made threats against him in violation of his First
Amendment rights and constituting racial discrimination seven years before his
parole was revoked was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations.
Norwood v. Michigan Department of Corrections, No. 02-1779, 67 Fed. Appx. 286
(6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Under Nevada law, the "mailbox" rule,
which regards notices as submitted to a court when they are placed in the hands
of prison officials for delivery to postal officials did not toll (extend) the
2-year deadline for a prisoner's filing of a claim for personal injury against
state correctional officials. See NRS 11.190(4). Milton v. Nevada Department of
Prisons, #38251, 68 P.3d 895 (Nev. 2003).[N/R]
Statute of limitations on former prisoner's civil
rights claim against police officers for allegedly coercing a witness to
falsely testify against him in a murder case was not tolled (extended) under
Illinois law by either his incarceration or the finding that he had a mental
disability for purposes of Social Security benefits (when there was no showing
that he was unable to manage his own affairs). Chatmon v. Easton, #02-2377, 56
Fed. Appx. 261 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Louisiana inmate could not pursue a lawsuit
against correctional officials over prison discipline when a state statute,
LRS-R.S. 15:1177, subd. A, required that he seek judicial review of an adverse
administrative remedy decision within 30 days and he failed to do so. Peterson
v. Toffton, No. 36,372-CA, 828 So. 2d 160 (La. App., 2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Statute of limitations period for filing a habeas
petition challenging the validity of a disciplinary action that resulted in a
prisoner's loss of good-time credits was tolled (extended) during the time that
the prisoner's administrative appeals were pending in the prison grievance
process. Foley v. Cockrell, 222 F. Supp. 2d 826 (N.D. Tex. 2002).[N/R]
A prison warden could not be held vicariously
liable for the alleged beating of a prisoner by unknown guards during a prison
riot, when there was no claim that he was directly involved in the incident or
encouraged the guards' alleged actions. Prisoner's claims against four guards
allegedly involved were barred by a one-year statute of limitations when he
failed to commence the action against them within a year. Coleman v. Dept. of
Rehab. & Corrections, #01-3169, 46 Fed. Appx. 765 (6th Cir. 2002).[N/R]
Civil rights lawsuit filed by prisoner acting as
his own lawyer should be regarded as received, for purposes of the statute of
limitations, when it was delivered by him to prison officials rather than when
it was finally received by the court; the statute of limitations might also be
tolled, appeals court finds, while prisoner waited to received court documents
that he needed to prepare his complaint, so that he would be in the same
position as a nonincarcerated litigant or one with a lawyer. Walker v.
Jastremski, #97-2721, 274 F.3d 652 (2nd Cir. 2001). [2002 JB May]
298:147 "Continuing violation" of jail
officials allegedly refusing to provide medical treatment for prisoner's hernia
meant that statute of limitations did not start to run until the last day on
which they refused to do so or the date that the inmate left jail; prisoner
could claim damages back to the first day of such refusal. Heard v. Sheahan,
No. 00-2908, 253 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2001).
297:134 Specific statute giving a prisoner in
Missouri only one year to sue the corrections department for any injuries
barred suit for injuries inmate suffered when van she was being transported in
overturned; more general five- year statute which would have applied if injured
party was not a prisoner had no bearing on the case. Kinder v. Missouri Dept.
of Corrections, #WD 58592, 43 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. App. 2001).
295:99 Existence of state law remedies for false
imprisonment did not bar prisoner's federal civil rights claim that his Fourth
and Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was allegedly held in custody
for 90 days beyond his scheduled release date; two year Kansas statute of
limitations rather than one-year statute applied to federal claim. Gragg v.
McKune, No. 84,354, 16 P.3d 311 (Kan. App. 2000).
283:100 Arizona statutory amendment eliminating
tolling (extension) of statute of limitations for prisoner lawsuits did not
apply retroactively to bar prisoner's lawsuit over his medical treatment when
the tolling had already taken place before the law was changed, even when the
prisoner did not actually file his lawsuit until after the change was
effective. Tworivers v. Lewis, No. 97-15844, 174 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1999).
287:164 One-year statute of limitations for
bringing a federal civil rights lawsuit in Louisiana was extended during the
time the prisoner was pursuing his available administrative remedies, as he was
legally required to do under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; plaintiff stated
a claim for deliberate indifference to treatment of his broken jaw. Harris v.
Hegmann, No. 98-30617, 198 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 1999).
[N/R] California statute of limitations on claims
against health care providers may be extended for up to two years while an
injured person is incarcerated; prisoner could pursue claim that he was injured
by ambulance attendants while being transported from prison to a hospital.
Belton v. Bowers Ambulance Service, No. S072534, 978 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1999).
265:5 California prisoner serving a life sentence
with possibility of parole was entitled to tolling (extension) of one-year
statute of limitations within which to bring lawsuit alleging excessive force
by correctional officers. Martinez v. Gomez, #96-56208, 137 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.
1998).
» Editor's Note: In Bianchi v. Bellingham
Police Department, 909 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1990), the court held that a
sentence of life with the possibility of parole counted as a term of less than
for life under Washington's tolling statute.
258:84 California prisoner's lawsuit, filed
almost four years after alleged injury, was time barred by California one- year
statute of limitations; under California law, imprisonment did not extend
statute for any longer than two additional years, despite accrual of claim prior
to change in state law that eliminated unlimited extensions during detention.
Parker v. Marcotte, 975 F.Supp. 1266 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
[N/R] Ex-prisoner who voluntarily participated in
medical research experiments was aware of his injuries and their cause years
before filing lawsuit; suit was barred by statute of limitations. Bibeau v.
Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, 980 F.Supp. 349 (D. Or. 1997).
219:35 California statute extending the statute
of limitations for filing a civil rights complaint during period of
incarceration applied from the time of plaintiff's arrest through his period of
imprisonment after conviction when he had been in continuous custody; federal
appeals court reinstates excessive force suit filed by prisoner dismissed by
trial court. Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1994).
220:51 Alabama state statute extending the time
within which to bring a lawsuit while a prisoner was incarcerated ceased to
apply when prisoner escaped from jail; prisoner's recapture did not extend the
time again; prisoner's civil rights lawsuit properly dismissed. Dukes v.
Smitherman, 32 F.3d 535 (11th Cir. 1994).
Prisoner's suit against correctional officers was
barred by Massachusetts three year statute of limitations; amendment to state
law removing imprisonment as a condition extending the limitations period
applied retroactively to bar suit, and did not violate federal law. Gonsalves
v. Flynn, 981 F.2d 45 (1st Cir. 1992).
Inmate's federal civil rights lawsuit alleging
due process deprivation in prison discipline was time-barred by Iowa statute of
limitations when he waited more than two years before filing it because of
requirement that he exhaust available state law remedies; nothing prevented
inmate from filing the suit and staying it pending state law exhaustion. Lown
v. Brimeyer, 956 F.2d 780 (8th Cir. 1992).
Statute of limitations on suing prison guards for
their alleged beating of detainee began to run on the date of the alleged
beating, rather than from the date when the detainee discovered the guards'
names. Martinez Torrado v. Colon Montes, 779 F.Supp. 668 (D.P.R. 1991).
Inmate's schizophrenia, sociopathic personality
and severe character disorder did not add up to a mental incapacity that would
extend the statute of limitations within which he had to bring a civil rights
lawsuit; action against correctional officials was time-barred. Street v. Vose,
936 F.2d 38 (1st Cir. 1991).
Federal appeals court reinstates false arrest
lawsuit by the "Hillside Strangler" because of state statute tolling
the statute of limitations during imprisonment. Bianchi v. Bellingham Police
Dept., 909 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1990).
Pre-trial detainee is not "imprisoned"
for purposes of tolling Michigan statute of limitations for bringing a federal
civil rights suit. Jones v. City of Hamtramck, 905 F.2d 908 (6th Cir. 1990).
Female inmate's suit against sheriffs for her two
alleged rapes by male inmates, resulting in her pregnancy, was barred by one
year statute of limitations, despite one sheriff's promise to try to reduce her
sentence to time served if she would forgo suit. Lloyd v. Howard, 566 So.2d 424
(FLa. App. 1990).