in § 1983 actions “a state statute of limitations and the coordinate tolling rules” are “binding rules of law”
How later courts described this case
- in § 1983 actions “a state statute of limitations and the coordinate tolling rules” are “binding rules of law”
- ignorance of the law “is not a factor that can warrant equitable tolling.”
- a petitioner’s pro se status and ignorance of the law are insufficient to support equitable tolling of the statute of limitations
- pro se status and ignorance of the law do not justify equitable tolling
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
BRIAN TIMOTHY RODRIGUEZ, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 5:19-cv-00165-LSC-SGC
)
WILLIAM FREEMAN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on June 14, 2019, recommending this
action be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (Doc. 15). The plaintiff has filed
a “Motion to Vacate Recommendation,” which the court construes as objections to
the report and recommendation. (Doc. 17).
The plaintiff objects to the dismissal of his claims as time-barred because he
has no access to legal materials in the Madison County Jail and “those that are sent
in mysteriously disappear.” (Id. at 1). The plaintiff also contends he “first filed in
the Honorable Courts in August of 2018 and November of 2018, but both times after
checking with the Clerk of Court’s Office, he was told his motions or pleadings were
never received.” (Id.). Finally, the plaintiff declares “he was told that ‘weekends
and holidays’ do not count” toward the running of the statute of limitations and thus
he believed he had “104 weekends of time not to mention holidays” to file this
action. (Id. at 2).
Through his objections the plaintiff argues the court should equitably toll the
statute of limitations. When a federal statute borrows a state statute of limitations
period, as with § 1983 claims, the corresponding state tolling rules are borrowed as
well. Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 99, 116 (2013)
(citing Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y. v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 484 (1980)
(in § 1983 actions “a state statute of limitations and the coordinate tolling rules” are
“binding rules of law”)). “[A] litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of
establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2)
that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way.” Weaver v. Firestone, 115
So. 3d 952, 957 (Ala. 2013) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418
(2005)). “Extraordinary circumstances” are matters beyond the plaintiff’s “control
and unavoidable even with the exercise of due diligence.” Id.
The plaintiff has not shown that extraordinary circumstances prevented his
timely filing of this action despite diligent pursuit of his rights. The plaintiff knew
of his injuries between November 26 and December 2, 2016; his release from
Madison County Jail on the latter date provided him ample opportunity to access the
legal materials allegedly unavailable to him during his most recent stint in jail. The
plaintiff’s allegations that he attempted to file this action in August and November
2018 but was informed by a Clerk that the filings had not been received, are vague
and unsupported by any corroborative documentation. The vague assertions do not
justify the plaintiff’s failure to sign the complaint in the action until January 17,
2019. Additionally:
the law is well settled that an inmate’s lack of legal knowledge, his
failure to understand legal principles and/or the inability to recognize
potential claims for relief at an earlier juncture do not constitute
extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling of
the limitation period. United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir.
2004) (pro se status and ignorance of the law do not
justify equitable tolling); Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th
Cir. 2000) (a petitioner’s pro se status and ignorance of the law are
insufficient to support equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations); Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1999)
(ignorance of the law and pro se status do not constitute “rare and
exceptional” circumstances justifying equitable tolling); Turner v.
Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 1999) (unfamiliarity with the legal
process during the applicable filing period did not
merit equitable tolling); Wakefield v. Railroad Retirement Board, 131
F.3d 967, 969 (11th Cir. 1997) (ignorance of the law “is not a factor
that can warrant equitable tolling.”). Further, neither an alleged
inadequate prison law library nor limited access thereto establishes
extraordinary circumstances warranting an equitable tolling of the
limitation period. Felder, 204 F.3d at 171; Marsh, 223 F.3d at 1220.
Dollar v. Russell Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. 11-0336, 2011 WL 2443668 at *1–2
(M.D. Ala. May 18, 2011), report and recommendation adopted 2011 WL 2441073
(June 17, 2011).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and the plaintiff’s objections,
the magistrate judge’s report is ADOPTED and the recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Therefore, in accordance with § 1915A(b), this action is due to be
dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
DONE AND ORDERED ON OCTOBER 31, 2019.
L. SCOTT Ce
UNITED STATES DIS¥RICT JUDGE
160704