Todd v. City of LaFayette, Alabama et al

Filing 103

OPINION AND ORDER directing that defendant Steve Smith's 51 motion for summary judgement is granted as to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against him. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/23/13. (scn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

MERRILL TODD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF LAFAYETTE, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:12cv589-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER

Relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Merrill Todd
brings this lawsuit naming as defendants the City of
LaFayette and police officers Jerome Bailey, Larry Clark,
Terry

Woods,

capacities.
Bailey,

and

Steve

Smith,

in

their

individual

The first count in his lawsuit contends that

Clark,

Woods,

and

Smith

violated

his

constitutional rights by using excessive force against
him; the second count asserts that the City of LaFayette
violated his constitutional rights by negligently hiring,
retaining,

and

failing

to

supervise

the

four

police

officers; and the final count is a state-law battery

claim against the four police officers.

Jurisdiction for

the federal claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
(federal
state-law

question)
claim

and

is

1343

(civil

properly

rights),

before

the

and

court

the

under

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
This case is currently before the court on Smith’s
motion for summary judgment on Todd’s § 1983 claim, based
on Smith’s assertion of a statute-of-limitations defense.*
For the reasons that follow, Smith’s motion for summary
judgment on the § 1983 claim is granted.

I.

BACKGROUND

Todd’s original complaint, filed July 6, 2012, was
filed

within

claims.

the

However,

statute
he

of

did

limitations

not

name

for

Smith

§

1983

in

that

complaint; he named Smith in an amended complaint filed

*
Smith also seeks summary judgment on the grounds
of qualified immunity and insufficient evidence; because
the statute-of-limitations issue is conclusive as to the
§ 1983 claims, the court does not reach Smith’s other
arguments.
2

on August 30, 2012.

By that time the two-year statute of
See Owens

limitations for his § 1983 claim had expired.

v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989) (holding that § 1983 claims
look to the general state-law limitations statute for
personal-injury actions); 1975 Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l)
(providing

a

two-year

personal-injury actions).

statute

of

limitations

for

Todd argues that the amended

complaint relates back to the date he filed the original
complaint

and

is

therefore

timely.

As

this

court

explained in its previous opinion and order, Todd v. City
of LaFayette, 2013 WL 1084296 (M.D. Ala. 2013), Alabama’s
state-law fictitious-party practice allows relation-back,
but Todd must first prove that this amendment satisfies
Alabama-relation-back prerequisites.
Subsection

(c)(1)(A)

of

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 15 provides that an amendment relates back to
the original pleading when “the law that provides the
applicable statute of limitations allows relation back.”
Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

15(c)(1)(A).

3

In

Saxton

v.

ACF

Industries, 254 F.3d 959 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc), the
Eleventh

Circuit

Court

of

Appeals

stated

that

this

provision requires application of state-law relation-back
principles, including Alabama fictitious-party practice,
when state law supplies the statute of limitations.
at 960.

Id.

Though Saxton was a diversity suit, this court

has previously determined that Saxton’s logic and the
purpose of subsection (c)(1)(A) support applying Saxton’s
holding to federal-question lawsuits where state law
provides the statute of limitations.

Mann v. Darden, 630

F. Supp. 2d 1305, 1311 (2009) (Thompson, J.); see also
Notes of Advisory Committee on 1991 Amendments (“Whatever
may be the controlling body of limitations law, if that
law affords a more forgiving principle of relation back
than

the

one

provided

in

this

rule,

it

should

be

available to save the claim.”).
As stated in Saxton, under Alabama law a plaintiff
can avoid the bar of the statute of limitations if: “(1)
the

original

complaint

adequately

4

described

the

fictitious defendant; (2) the original complaint stated
a

claim

against

plaintiff

was

the

ignorant

fictitious
of

the

defendant;

true

identity

(3)

the

of

the

defendant; and (4) the plaintiff used due diligence to
discover the defendant’s true identity.”

254 F.3d at 965

(citing Jones v. Resorcon, 604 So. 2d 370, 372-73 (Ala.
1992)).

In its previous opinion and order, Todd v. City

of LaFayette, 2013 WL 1084296 (M.D. Ala. 2013), this
court explained that there was insufficient evidence in
the record for it to find that Todd had established the
third and fourth of these requirements.

The court thus

ordered Todd to produce evidence answering two questions,
designed to settle the relation-back issue: (1) When did
plaintiff

Todd

first

learn

defendant

Steve

Smith’s

identity?

(2) What efforts did plaintiff Todd and his

attorney take to discover defendant Smith’s identity?
In response to the court’s opinion and order, Todd
explained that although LaFayette Police Chief Vines told
him that Smith hit him with a truck, he was given this

5

information while in the hospital recovering from the
attack.

He explains that he could not remember what

Chief Vines told him because he was still “out of it.”
Todd Aff. (Doc. No. 97, Ex. 1) at ¶ 4.
According to Todd, the next he heard about Smith
hitting him with a truck was at a press conference held
in relation to this lawsuit on July 25, 2012.

Todd

states that his family and witnesses attended the press
conference at the courthouse to answer media questions.
A family member, either his cousin or his aunt, told
Todd:

“[Y]ou

remember

getting

hit

with

Someone said they hit you with a truck.”

the

Id.

truck.

Todd then

asked who hit him, and the same family member reminded
Todd that Chief Vines told him it was Smith.

Todd says

he then asked his lawyer to add Smith to the lawsuit,
because he wanted everyone who hurt him to be held
responsible; and his lawyer said he would and that there
was still time to add Smith.

Although Todd does not

state when he told counsel to add Smith to the lawsuit,

6

it is clear from the filing that counsel was present at
See Pl. Resp. (Doc. No. 97)

this same press conference.

at ¶ 2 (“Todd advised... counsel that it was at the press
conference that we held shortly after the defendants were
served with the original complaint that his witnesses
spoke to him again about the incident and that he had not
‘been around them in a while to talk with them.’

After

responding to questions from the media, Todd and his
witnesses
counsel

gathered

about

around

their

counsel

individual

and

were

recollections

telling
of

the

accident.”) (emphasis added).

II.

DISCUSSION

Todd’s evidence in response to the court’s questions
shows that he knew Smith’s identity by July 25, 2012, at
the latest.

The statute of limitations was not set to

expire until August 7, 2012.

Therefore Todd had 13

days–-nearly two weeks--to amend his complaint and name
Smith before the statute of limitations would run.

7

The

court does not need to reach the question of whether Todd
made diligent efforts to discover Smith’s identity and
the need to include him in this suit, because it is clear
from Todd’s statements that he knew both Smith’s identity
and Smith’s connection to the lawsuit well before the
statute of limitations expired on his federal claim.
Todd waited a month after learning this information to
amend the complaint and name Smith.
allow

the

relation

back

of

Alabama law does not
needlessly

untimely

amendments.
Most troubling is the fact that Todd’s counsel was
present at this same press conference and assured Todd
that he would file the amendment in a timely manner.
is evident from the foregoing, he did not do so.

As
The

result is that Todd’s § 1983 claim must be dismissed, and
Smith’s

motion

for

summary

judgment

on

this

claim

granted.
As explained in the court’s previous opinion and
order Todd v. City of LaFayette, 2013 WL 1084296 (M.D.

8

Ala.

2013),

Todd’s

state-law-battery

affected by this decision.

claim

is

not

Smith’s motion for summary

judgment on the state-law claim is still pending and will
be addressed in a separate opinion.
***
Accordingly,

it

is

ORDERED

that

defendant

Steve

Smith’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 51) is
granted as to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against him.
DONE, this the 23rd day of September, 2013.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE