AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
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).