Garrison v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 2)
Filing
16
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/9/2016. (kh, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
TAMMY R. GARRISON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv846-MHT
(WO)
OPINION
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state
prisoner, filed this lawsuit challenging her placement
in disciplinary segregation due to a false accusation
from
another
prisoner
and
contending
that
an
investigator used excessive force against her when she
refused to admit to the accusation.
now
before
the
supplemental
Magistrate
court
on
recommendation
Judge
that
the
of
This lawsuit is
recommendation
the
plaintiff’s
United
case
be
and
States
dismissed
with prejudice due to the expiration of the statute of
limitations.
Also
before
the
court
are
plaintiff’s
objections to the recommendation and the supplemental
recommendation.
review
of
plaintiff’s
After
the
an
record,
objections
independent
the
should
be
de
novo
concludes
court
and
that
overruled
and
the
magistrate judge’s recommendations adopted.
However,
this
court’s
adoption
of
the
recommendations should not be read as a holding that
the
definition
of
“insane”
under
1975
Ala.
Code
§ 6-2-8, which allows tolling for a person who was
“insane” when her claim accrued, is equivalent to the
definition of insanity as used in the context of a
criminal case.
no.
13)
at
3
See Supplemental Recommendation (doc.
(citing
insanity defense).
term
“insane”
mind.”
“what
as
criminal
cases
involving
the
1975 Ala. Code § 1-1-1 defines the
including
“all
persons
of
unsound
The Alabama courts have not clearly elucidated
constitutes
tolling
the
an
running
‘unsound
of
the
mind’
for
limitations
purposes
period
of
until
removal of the disability.”
Travis v. Ziter, 681 So.
2d 1348, 1352 (Ala. 1996).
But see Alabama Power Co.
2
v.
Shaw,
111
“insanity”
So.
in
17,
tolling
20
(Ala.
context
1926)
(holding
encompasses
that
temporary
unsoundness of the mind and recognizing that the word
“signifies any derangement of the mind that deprives it
of the power to reason or will intelligently.”)
In any
case, even if plaintiff was of “unsound mind” at some
point during the limitations period due to her nervous
breakdowns, she has not shown that she was of “unsound
mind”
under
any
definition
at
the
time
her
claims
accrued, 1975 Ala. Code § 6-2-8(c), that is, in August
2013.
seeking
Although she reports that she was grieving and
mental-health
care
during
that
time,
those
contentions are not sufficient to establish that she
was “insane.”
Accordingly, the court agrees that her
claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 9th day of May, 2016.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?