Hatcher v. Carter (INMATE 3)

Filing 13

ORDERED as follows: 1) Plf Daniel Lamar Hatcher's 10 objections are OVERRULED; 2) The 9 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3) Plf Daniel Lamar Hatcher's claims against Dft J. Carter are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B); 4) This action is DISMISSED without any further opportunity for amendment, and prior to service, pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/24/2017. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL LAMAR HATCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. CARTER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-687-WKW

ORDER
On January 17, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation. (Doc.
# 9.) On January 30, 2017, Plaintiff Daniel Lamar Hatcher filed objections. (Doc.
# 10.) The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those
portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b).
This Bivens1 action was filed on August 22, 2016. In his complaint, Plaintiff
contends he was denied access to a prison law library from July 14, 2009 through

1

A Bivens action, which is brought against a federal actor acting in his or her individual
capacity under color of federal law, is the federal counterpart to an action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971); see Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 498-500. As the Magistrate Judge noted, this
action is treated as a Bivens action because, at the time Plaintiff was denied access to a law
library, he was housed as a federal inmate in the Montgomery municipal jail. If Plaintiff was
housed as a state inmate, this would be treated as an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims would be subject to dismissal pursuant to a two-year statute of
limitations. Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 876 F.2d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he two-year
limitations period of Ala.Code § 6–2–38(l) applies to section 1983 actions in Alabama.”).

approximately August 14, 2012.

(Doc. # 1 at 2.)

The Magistrate Judge

recommended that the action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) on grounds that the complaint was filed more than two years after
the alleged constitutional violation. In his objection, Plaintiff argues that “there is
no statute of limitations on [c]onstitutional [v]iolations.”

(Doc. # 10 at 2.)

Plaintiff’s objection is invalid. See Dennis v. United States Dept. of Justice, 228 F.
App’x 861, 863–64 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying Alabama’s two-year statute of
limitations to a Bivens action).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff Daniel Lamar Hatcher’s objections (Doc. # 10) are
OVERRULED.

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 9) is ADOPTED.

3.

Plaintiff Daniel Lamar Hatcher’s claims against Defendant J. Carter

are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
4.

This action is DISMISSED without any further opportunity for

amendment, and prior to service, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).2

2

Because the alleged constitutional violation occurred more than two years prior to the
filing of the complaint, any opportunity to amend the complaint to state a claim would be
unfruitful.
2

DONE this 24th day of April, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3