Porter v. Wade et al
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DENNIS CHARLES PORTER,
Case No. 18-10273
HON. AVERN COHN
LONNIE WADE, et. al.,
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Dennis
Charles Porter filed a pro se complaint naming Lonnie Wade, a police officer, and the
Detroit Police Department as defendants. Plaintiff has been granted permission to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, i.e. in forma pauperis. In general, plaintiff
claims he was subjected to excessive force. For the reasons that follow, the complaint
will be summarily dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations.
II. Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915(e)(2)(A), a district court must on its
own dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service if it finds that the action is
frivolous or malicious, that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
that it seeks monetary relief from a defendant or defendants who are immune from such
relief. Id. Moreover, a district court may raise the statute of limitations issue on its own
while screening a civil rights complaint. See Scruggs v. Jones, 86 F. App’x. 916, 917
(6th Cir. 2004). A district court must read a pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept a plaintiff’s allegations as true, unless
they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
A. The Complaint
Plaintiff claims that on May 31, 2009, he was subjected to excessive force when
he was shot in the left knee-cap by Wade during a routine arrest. Plaintiff alleges that
he was unarmed at the time. Plaintiff claims that the officer’s actions amounted to cruel
and unusual punishment. He seeks monetary damages.
Plaintiff's complaint is signed and dated January 17, 2018.
B. Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. In section 1983 cases,
the appropriate statute of limitations is the analogous state statute of limitations for
personal injury actions. Dixon v. Anderson, 928 F.2d 212, 215 (6th Cir.1991). In
Michigan, the three (3) year statute of limitations contained in M.C.L. § 600.5805(8) is
the uniform limitations period to be applied to section 1983 claims which arise out of
Michigan. Carroll v. Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44, 45 (6th Cir.1986).
Here, plaintiff’s excessive force claim accrued from the date of his arrest, May
31, 2009. The complaint was not filed until 2018, more than eight years after the
alleged excessive for took place. Thus, plaintiff’s excessive force claim against the
defendants is barred by the statute of limitations.
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §
The Court further certifies that any appeal would be frivolous and not in good
faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 6, 2018
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?