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, )

Download PDF
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?