Jerome Simpson v. State of Florida, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jerome Raheem Simpson. Decision: Reversed and Remanded. 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: 16-17268

Date Filed: 01/10/2018

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17268
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cv-02797-EAK-TBM

JEROME RAHEEM SIMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA,
DEPUTY PETERSON,
Pinellas County Jail Deputy (payroll #39490),
CPL BAKER,
(payroll #7428),
PINELLAS COUNTY JAIL'S PROPERTY CONTROL OPERATIVE
(S) OF INMATE'S PERSONAL PROPERTY SECTION, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 10, 2018)

Case: 16-17268

Date Filed: 01/10/2018

Page: 2 of 4

Before TJOFLAT, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Raheem Simpson, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the sua
sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in
concluding that the four-year statute of limitations period had run.
We begin by summarizing the operative facts. On September 23, 2016,
Simpson signed a complaint against the State of Florida, the Attorney General of
Florida, and several correctional officers, and had it stamped as received by prison
officials. Simpson alleged in his complaint that, while he was being held at the
county jail awaiting transfer to the Florida Department of Corrections, an officer
instructed him to lay out his personal property for a search, and he was led away
before the search concluded. According to the complaint, Simpson was later
transferred to his new location without his personal property, and the property
never arrived. Based on these circumstances, Simpson asserted that his “personal
property had been directly subjected to the dangerous condition of disposal on
August 21, 2012, and had been disposed of on September 24, 2012.” ECF No. 1 at
13. As a result, he claimed several constitutional violations.
Upon initial screening of Simpson’s case, the district court dismissed
Simpson’s complaint sua sponte for being filed after the expiration of Florida’s
2

Case: 16-17268

Date Filed: 01/10/2018

Page: 3 of 4

four-year statute of limitations. The court found that the defendants’ alleged
actions occurred on August 21, 2012, when Simpson was transferred to his new
prison facility and did not have his belongings registered as his property.
Consequently,

the

district

court

concluded

that

Simpson’s

complaint,

constructively filed on September 23, 2016, was filed after the four-year statute of
limitations period had passed.
We review do novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim,
“viewing the allegations in the complaint as true.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157,
1159–60 (11th Cir. 2003). We also review de novo “a district court’s interpretation
and application of a statute of limitations.” Foudy v. Indian River Cty. Sheriff’s
Office, 845 F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 2017).
A district court may properly dismiss a § 1983 complaint sua sponte,
without requiring any responsive pleadings, for failure to state a claim if the action
would be barred by the state’s statute of limitations. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,
213–15 (2007). The statute-of-limitations period for § 1983 claims in Florida is
four years. Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003).
The standard rule is that federal civil-rights claims begin accruing when the
plaintiff “has a complete and present cause of action.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S.
384, 388 (2007) (quotations and citation omitted). For deprivation-of-property suits
specifically, “the claim does not accrue until the relevant governmental authorities
3

Case: 16-17268

Date Filed: 01/10/2018

Page: 4 of 4

have made a final decision on the fate of the property.” Corn v. City of Lauderdale
Lakes, 904 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1990) (quotation omitted). So here, based on
the allegations in Simpson’s complaint, which we are required to accept at this
stage, Simpson’s cause of action began accruing when the prison disposed of his
personal property on September 24, 2012. It could not have accrued before then
because the property was not allegedly disposed of before that date.
Turning to the filing date of Simpson’s complaint, the filing date for a §
1983 complaint filed by a pro se prisoner “shall be that of delivery to prison
officials.” Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 783 (11th Cir. 1993) (emphasis
omitted) (extending Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), to §1983 complaints by
pro se prisoners). Therefore, Simpson’s complaint was deemed filed when it was
signed and stamped by prison officials on September 23, 2016.
In light of the accrual date of September 24, 2012, and the filing date of
September 23, 2016, Simpson’s complaint was timely filed within Florida’s fouryear statute of limitations for §1983 claims. Consequently, the district court erred
in holding that Simpson’s complaint was not timely filed within the statute of
limitations. We therefore reverse the district court’s order dismissing the case as
untimely filed and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

4