Daniel v. Humphrey et al

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on 42 USC 1983 case re 1 Complaint filed by Jeffrey H. Daniel. Recommending that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that this case be closed, as the instant action was filed well beyond the applicable four year statute of limitations. Objections to R&R due by 8/21/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 8/4/2009. (tw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 09-21390-CIV-GOLD MAGISTRATE JUDGE P. A. WHITE JEFFREY H. DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER HUMPHREY, ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. Introduction The plaintiff Jeffrey H. Daniel, an Ohio inmate, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant in to 42 U.S.C. County §1983 from concerning events that transpired Miami-Dade

October, 2003 to June, 2004. [DE# 1]. The plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [DE# 6].

This Cause is presently before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. II. Analysis

As amended, 28 U.S.C. §1915 reads in pertinent part as follows: Sec. 1915 Proceedings in Forma Pauperis * * *

(e)(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ­ * * *

(B) the action or appeal ­ * (i) * *

is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is "frivolous under section 1915(e) "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11 Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1044 (2001). Dismissals on this ground should only be ordered when the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," id., 490 U.S. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations that are "clearly baseless." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Dismissals for failure to state a claim are governed by the same standard as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11 In order Cir. 1997)("The language of section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). 2

to state a claim, a plaintiff must show that conduct under color of state law, complained of in the civil rights suit, violated the plaintiff's rights, privileges, or immunities under the Constitution or laws of the United States. County, 139 F.3d 865, 872 (11 Cir. 1998). Pro se complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1979) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). The allegations of the complaint are taken as true and are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Davis v. Arrington v. Cobb

Monroe County Bd. Of Educ., 120 F.3d 1390, 1393 (11 Cir. 1997). To determine whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in the These by mere complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). elements of a cause of action [that are] supported Id. include "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the conclusory statements." Second, the Court must determine whether This is a

the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. its judicial experience and common sense." of misconduct." the complaint

"context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on The plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the "mere possibility The Court must review the factual allegations in "to determine if they plausibly suggest an When faced with alternative explanations

entitlement to relief."

for the alleged misconduct, the Court may exercise its judgment in 3

determining whether plaintiff's proffered conclusion is the most plausible occurred.
1

or

whether

it

is

more

likely

that

no

misconduct

The plaintiff raises claims arising out of his October 17, 2003 arrest and subsequent detention. The plaintiff alleges that Miami Beach Police Officer Humphrey and other unidentified officers engaged in false arrest and failed to read him his Miranda rights. The plaintiff does not explain why there was no probable cause for the arrest; and he does not provide any details about why he was arrested or the disposition of any charges, except to state that he was released from custody sometime before June, 2004 when any charges were apparently dropped.2 was in custody and then The plaintiff also alleges that him medical attention. In Officer Santana engaged in excessive force the next day while he refused addition, the plaintiff seeks to sue Miami-Dade County, alleging that he spent 52 days in custody after the criminal case was dismissed To the extent that any defendant may have violated the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by engaging in false arrest or excessive force, and violated his constitutional rights by detaining him after the charges were dropped, such claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. rights suit.
1

Further, the

plaintiff cannot raise a violation of Miranda in a federal civil In the Eleventh Circuit the failure "to follow

The application of the Twombly standard was clarified in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). The plaintiff states that he received an apology letter from Dade County Jail in June, 2004, after he had been released. It is not clear whether he "went home" in June, 2004 or he received the letter in June, 2004. Nevertheless, it is clear that he was released as late as June, 2004.
2

4

Miranda procedures triggers the prophylactic protection of the exclusion of the evidence, but does not violate any substantive Fifth Amendment right such that a cause of action for money damages under §1983 is created." Cir. 1999). A district court may sua sponte dismiss a pro se civil rights action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) on grounds that the face of the complaint clearly establishes that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51 (2 Cir. 1995). The plaintiff had four years from June, 2004 to file a civil action alleging a violation of his constitutional rights premised on illegal arrest, use of force or prolonged detention. He missed the deadline by filing his Complaint with the Clerk of Court in May, 2009, almost one year after the limitations period expired. In Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), the Supreme Court held that the length of the limitations period in actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, and the closely related questions of tolling and applications, are to be governed by state law. injury actions. §95.11(3)(a), Such claims in Florida are governed by actions founded on negligence, or The Court Fla.Stat. Fla.Stat. further held that these cases are best characterized as personal Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1291 (11

§95.11(3)(o), actions for assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious interference, false imprisonment, or other intentional tort, except as provided in other sections. Both of these sections establish four year periods of limitations. Later, the Supreme Court decided Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989), which held that when a State has multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions as does Florida, courts 5

considering §1983 claims should borrow the State's general or residual personal injury statute of limitations. In Florida, this is Fla.Stat. §95.11(3)(p), four years for actions not specifically provided for. The Supreme Court has also held that a federal court applying a state statute of limitations to an inmate's federal civil rights action should also apply any state statute tolling the limitations period for prisoners. Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (l989). Florida has a general tolling statute, Fla.Stat. §95.05l, but it does not toll limitations periods for prisoners. Thus, the length of the limitations period, determined by state law, is four years. The uniform rule in computing time McMillen v. Hamilton, Because the The periods is that the first day of the period is excluded from the computation, and the last day is included. 48 So.2d 162 (Fla. 1950); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(a).

alleged unconstitutional conduct occurred at the latest in June, 2004, his last day to file a civil action was June, 2008. expiration of the four year period of limitations. The Undersigned notes that the United States Supreme Court has specifically held that a §1983 claim for false arrest, "where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process." Wallace v. Kato, 127 S.Ct. 1091 (2007). In addition, "[b]ecause an illegal search or arrest may be followed by a valid conviction, a successful §1983 action for Fourth Amendment search and seizure violations does not necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction. As a result, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994) does not generally bar such claims." Because of doctrines like independent 6 Hughes v. Lott, 350 and inevitable F.3d 1157, 1160 (11 Cir. 2003) (citations and quotations omitted). source complaint in this case was filed in May, 2009, well beyond the

discovery, and especially harmless error, such a §1983 action, even if successful, would not necessarily imply that the plaintiff's conviction was unlawful. See Wallace v. Smith, 145 Fed.Appx. 300, 301-302 (11 Cir. 2005); see also Vickers v. Donahue, 137 Fed. Appx. 285 (11 Cir. 2005). Consequently, an aggrieved plaintiff must bring a federal civil rights suit challenging the legality of a search or an arrest within four years of the search or arrest; he cannot wait until the conviction is declared invalid.3 III. Conclusion

It is therefore recommended that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that this case be closed, as the instant action was filed well beyond the applicable four year statute of limitations. Objections to this report may be filed with the District Judge within ten days of receipt of a copy of the report. It is so recommended at Miami, Florida, this 4th day of August, 2009.

______________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Even if the statute of limitation began to run when the charges were apparently dropped and the plaintiff was released in June, 2004, this Complaint would still be untimely.
3

7

cc:

Jeffrey H. Daniel, Pro Se No. 553-0549 Marion Correctional Institution P.O. Box 57 Marion, OH 43301-0057

8