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, )

Download PDF
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

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?