stating that “[p]rocedural requirements established by Congress for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[p]rocedural requirements established by Congress for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DeANDRE D. CURRINGTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-457-ECM-KFP
)
WALLY OLSON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff DeAndre Currington, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
is confined at the Dale County Jail in Ozark, Alabama. Currington filed this action against
Dale County Sheriff Mason Bynum and former Dale County Sheriff Wally Olson using
this Court’s standard form for complaints brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. After
review and consideration of the Complaint, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this
case be DISMISSED for the reasons set forth below.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Currington was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3), his
Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires a court
to dismiss the complaint or any portion of it if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim to
relief that is plausible, the plaintiff must plead factual content that “allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In
applying § 1915, “the court is authorized to test the proceeding for frivolousness or
maliciousness even before service of process or before the filing of the answer.” Ali v.
Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990).
An early determination of the merits of an IFP proceeding provides a
significant benefit to courts (because it will allow them to use their scarce
resources effectively and efficiently), to state officials (because it will free
them from the burdens of frivolous and harassing litigation), and to prisoners
(because courts will have the time, energy and inclination to give meritorious
claims the attention they need and deserve). “We must take advantage of
every tool in our judicial workshop.” Spears [v. McCotter], 766 F.2d [179,
182 (5th Cir. 1985)].
Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)
(stating court shall review civil action by prisoner against governmental entity or officer or
employee before docketing, if feasible, or as soon as practicable after docketing).
III. THE COMPLAINT
Currington was a passenger in Joshua Fee’s vehicle when it was pulled over by a
Dale County deputy sheriff. Doc. 1 at 3. Fee informed the deputy sheriff that he did not
have a driver’s license. Id. Fee was also operating his vehicle without a car tag or car
insurance. Id. After finding a syringe on Fee and “meth” in his vehicle, the deputy sheriff
gave Fee a verbal warning and released him. Id. Currington, however, complains he was
charged with possession of meth, arrested, and placed in the Dale County Jail. Id. For relief,
Currington seeks $250,000 for false imprisonment and a violation of his right to equal
protection. Id. at 2, 4. According to the Complaint, the incident occurred in 2018. Id. at 2.
IV. DISCUSSION
The statute of limitations is usually raised as an affirmative defense. In an action
proceeding in forma pauperis under § 1983, a court may consider affirmative defenses
apparent from the face of the complaint. Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd.,
915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th Cir. 1990); Ali, 892 F.2d 438. “[I]f the district court sees that
an affirmative defense would defeat the action, a section 1915[(e)(2)(B)(i)] dismissal is
allowed.” Clark, 915 F.2d at 640. “The expiration of the statute of limitations is an
affirmative defense the existence of which warrants dismissal as frivolous.” Id. at 640 n.2
(citation omitted); Smith v. Shorestein, 217 F. App’x 877, 880 (11th Cir. 2007) (same).
“All constitutional claims brought under § 1983 are tort actions, subject to the
statute of limitations governing personal injury actions in the state where the § 1983 action
has been brought.” McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation
omitted). The governing limitations period in Alabama is two years. Id. (citing Ala. Code
§ 6-2-38; Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 876 F.2d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1989)). Generally,
the limitations period begins to run from the date “the facts which would support a cause
of action are apparent or should be apparent to a person with a reasonably prudent regard
for his rights.” Brown v. Georgia Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 335 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th
Cir. 2003) (citing Rozar v. Mullis, 85 F.3d 556, 561-62 (11th Cir. 1996)).
By Currington’s own admission, the events described in the Complaint occurred in
2018. However, he did not file this action until July 13, 2023,1 more than three years after
the limitations period expired. Thus, it is clear from the face of the Complaint that this
action is time barred and due to be dismissed. See Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown,
466 U.S. 147, 152 (1984) (stating that “[p]rocedural requirements established by Congress
for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague
sympathy for particular litigants”).
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as time barred.
Further, it is ORDERED that by August 25, 2023, the parties may file written
objections to this Recommendation. The parties must specifically identify the factual
findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made.
Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the Court. The
parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, is not
appealable.
1 The Court considers July 13, 2023, to be the filing date of the Complaint. Although the Clerk
stamped the Complaint “filed” on August 2, 2023, Plaintiff signed his Complaint on July 13, 2023,
and a pro se inmate’s complaint is deemed by law to have been filed the date it is delivered to
prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271–272 (1988); Adams v. United
States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340–41 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir.
1993).
Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo
determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the
Recommendation and waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District
Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by
the District Court except on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11TH CIR. R. 3-1.
Done this 11th day of August, 2023.
/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate
KELLY FITZGERALD PATE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE