McDaniel v. Jones et al
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. # 20 ) is GRANTED; (2) McDaniels's federal constitutional claim against defendant Jones and FTCA claim against the United States are both DISMISSED with prejudice; (3) This action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket; and (4) A corresponding Judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 08/05/2018.(KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer via US Mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AT LONDON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-57-DLB
JOSEPH MCDANIELS
VS.
PLAINTIFF
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
DEFENDANTS
*** *** *** ***
Joseph McDaniels is a federal prisoner who was once confined at the United
States Penitentiary (USP) – McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky, was then transferred to
the USP in Coleman, Florida, and is now incarcerated at the USP in Tucson, Arizona.
Proceeding without a lawyer, McDaniels filed a civil rights complaint. (Doc. # 1). The
Court conducted an initial review of that complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)
and 1915A and ultimately dismissed some of McDaniels’s claims without prejudice.
McDaniels’s case then proceeded with respect to his federal constitutional claim against
USP-McCreary Health Services Administrator R. Jones and his first FTCA claim against
the United States. (Doc. # 13).
The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss McDaniels’s case or, in the
alternative, a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 20). The defendants argue, among
other things, that McDaniels’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
(Doc. #20-1 at 10-16, 23-26). The Court has fully reviewed the defendants’ motion and
concludes that their arguments regarding the statutes of limitation are well taken.
1
McDaniels’s federal constitutional claim against defendant Jones, which he brings
pursuant to the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), is barred by the statute of limitations. In Bivens actions, federal
courts “apply the most analogous statute of limitations from the state where the events
giving rise to the claims occurred.” Baker v. Mukasey, 287 F. App’x 422, 424 (6th Cir.
2008). McDaniels’s claims arose in Kentucky and, therefore, Kentucky’s one-year statute
of limitations for asserting personal-injury claims applies to his federal constitutional claim.
See id.; see also Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.140(1)(a); Hornback v. Lexington-Fayette
Urban Co. Govt., 543 F. App’x 499, 501 (6th Cir. 2013); Mitchell v. Chapman, 343 F.3d
811, 825 (6th Cir. 2003). Under the most generous construction of the facts, McDaniels
fully exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his claim no later than May
2016, but did not file his complaint in federal court until well over one year later, in
December 2017. (Doc. # 20-1 at 15-16). Thus, McDaniels’s federal constitutional claim
against defendant Jones is untimely.
McDaniels’s FTCA claim against the United States is also time-barred. As the
defendants establish in their motion, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) denied McDaniels’s
administrative tort claim in writing via a letter dated March 24, 2017. (Doc. # 20-1 at 25).
Under the law, McDaniels had no later than six months from that date to file his lawsuit in
federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); Ellison v. United States, 531 F.3d 359, 361-62
(6th Cir. 2008). However, McDaniels filed this lawsuit on December 11, 2017, over eight
months after the BOP made it clear that it had denied his claim. Thus, McDaniels’s FTCA
claim against the United States is time-barred. See Ellison, 531 F.3d at 361 (holding that
because the plaintiff filed her lawsuit almost seven months after the date the notice of
2
final denial was mailed, her claim was time barred); Thompson v. United States, 8 F.
App’x 547, 548 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that the FTCA barred a lawsuit filed more than six
months after the agency rejected the claim).
McDaniels does not dispute these facts. Instead, McDaniels responds to the
defendants’ dispositive motion by filing an affidavit pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and asking for time to take discovery. (Docs. # 22, 22-1). This
rule provides that, once a party moves for summary judgment, “[i]f a nonmovant shows
by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to
justify its opposition, the court may . . . allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to
take discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (emphasis added).
Here, as the defendants correctly point out it in their reply brief, McDaniels “offers
no specifics as to what facts he cannot present or why the requested discovery would
help him to find those specific relevant facts.” (Doc. # 23 at 2-3). McDaniels does mention
the affirmative defense of equitable tolling in his affidavit. (Doc. # 22-1 at 2). But
McDaniels has not demonstrated his need for discovery or, more importantly, identified
what specific material facts he hopes to uncover through the discovery process, as
required under the law. See Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n., 428 F. Supp.2d
675, 680 (E.D. Ky. 2006) (citing and discussing Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d
483 (6th Cir. 2000)); see also Harris v. Brennan, No. 14-cv-751, 2015 WL 7302724, *4
(N.D. Okla. 2015). Rather, it is clear from McDaniels’s submission that his discovery
requests are a simply an attempt to search for documents or other evidence that could
possibly support an equitable tolling argument. That is not a valid use of Rule 56(d).
3
Put simply, McDaniels’s federal constitutional claim against defendant Jones and
FTCA claim against the United States are time-barred. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. # 20) is GRANTED;
(2)
McDaniels’s federal constitutional claim against defendant Jones and FTCA
claim against the United States are both DISMISSED with prejudice;
(3)
This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket; and
(4)
A corresponding Judgment will be entered this date.
This 5th day of August, 2018.
K:\DATA\ORDERS\ProSe\McDaniels 18-057-DLB Memorandum granting MTD MSJ.docx
4
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?