Escobar v. Warren County Sheriff's Department et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. On screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A the Court will, by separate Order, dismiss Plaintiffs claims as frivolous. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants; Warren Cnty. Atty (SG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT BOWLING GREEN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-P85-R
SAMUEL A. ESCOBAR
PLAINTIFF
v.
WARREN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT. et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Samuel A. Escobar, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff, who was incarcerated at the Warren County Regional Jail (WCRJ) at the
pertinent time, names as Defendants the Warren County Sheriff’s Department and the following
WCRJ employees: Shawn Wittlesey, Sheriff Tim Macklin, and Misse Edmonds. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants failed to protect him from an inmate assault on March 27, 2012. He
states that he still suffers from headaches and other effects from the assault. He asks for
damages and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
II. ANALYSIS
When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity,
officer, or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the action, if the
Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may,
therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory
or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. When determining whether a
plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must construe the
complaint in a light most favorable to Plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true.
Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). While a reviewing court must
liberally construe pro se pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam),
to avoid dismissal, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Because § 1983 does not provide a statute of limitations, federal courts borrow the forum
state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 275-80
(1985). Thus, in Kentucky, § 1983 actions are limited by the one-year statute of limitations
found in Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a). Collard v. Ky. Bd. of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179, 182 (6th
Cir. 1990). “[T]he statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to
know of the injury which is the basis of his action[,] and [] a plaintiff has reason to know of his
injury when he should have discovered it through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Id. at
183. Though the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a court may raise the issue sua
sponte if the defense is obvious from the face of the complaint. Fields v. Campbell, 39 F. App’x
221, 223 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Haskell v. Washington Twp., 864 F.2d 1266, 1273 (6th Cir.
1988)).
Here, it is clear from the face of the complaint that the assault occurred on March 27,
2012. However Plaintiff did not sign his complaint until June 5, 2014. Under the mailbox rule,
2
the document is deemed filed when presented to prison officials for mailing. Miller v. Collins,
305 F.3d 491, 497-98 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)). Even
assuming that Plaintiff presented his complaint to prison officials on the same date that he signed
the complaint, his complaint was filed well over a year after the limitations period had run.
Thus, the instant action is time-barred.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will, by separate Order, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims as
frivolous. Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001).
Date:
November 12, 2014
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
Warren County Attorney
4413.009
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?