Barbara McCourtney-Bates v. Jeffrey Dawsey, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Barbara McCourtney-Bates. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-15136

Date Filed: 02/08/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15136
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00308-JSM-PRL

BARBARA MCCOURTNEY-BATES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JEFFREY J. DAWSY,
Citrus County Sheriff,
RONALD KEITH CZECHOWSKI,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 8, 2017)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-15136

Date Filed: 02/08/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Barbara McCourtney-Bates discovered in 2013 that Jeffrey Dawsy and
Ronald Czechowski had accessed her personal information stored on Florida’s
“Driver and Vehicle Information Database.” In 2015 she filed this lawsuit,
asserting claims against Dawsy and Czechowski under the Driver’s Privacy
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721–2725, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court
granted summary judgment in favor of Dawsy and Czechowski, ruling that
McCourtney-Bates’ claims were time-barred. That was because the four-year
statute of limitations for both claims began to run when the information was
accessed, and about eight years had elapsed between the date Dawsy and
Czechowski accessed her information and the date McCourtney-Bates filed her
lawsuit. This is her appeal.
As an initial matter, McCourtney-Bates’ briefs do not challenge the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to Dawsy and Czechowski on her § 1983
claim. That means that she has abandoned all arguments relating to that claim.
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014).
As to her claim under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, McCourtneyBates does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that her claim is subject to
a four-year statute of limitations, that that limitations period began to run when the
violation occurred, and that more than four years passed between the date of the
violation and the date that she filed this lawsuit. Her sole contention is that the
2

Case: 16-15136

Date Filed: 02/08/2017

Page: 3 of 3

limitations period was equitably tolled until she discovered the violation in 2013
because a violation of the Act is “self-concealing.”
That contention is foreclosed by our decision in Foudy v. Indian River
County Sheriff’s Office, Nos. 15-14646, 15-14659, 15-15015, __ F.3d __, 2017
WL 74696 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2017). The plaintiffs in that case, like McCourtneyBates here, asserted a claim under the Act because law enforcement officials had
unlawfully accessed their information on the Florida driver database. Id. at *1.
We held that “the illegal act of accessing the database without a legitimate purpose
does not by necessity involve a deception, misrepresentation, trick, or
contrivance.” Id. at *5. “As a result, [Driver’s Privacy Protection Act] violations
are not self-concealing, and [plaintiffs] cannot reap the benefit of equitable
tolling.” Id. We are bound to follow that holding. See United States v. Archer,
531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] prior panel’s holding is binding on all
subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of
abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.”).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that the limitations
period for McCourtney-Bates’ claim had not been equitably tolled.
AFFIRMED.

3