Dunn v. Tennessee Department of Revenue et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM. An appropriate order will be entered. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 8/12/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM DUNN
Plaintiff,
v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, et al.
Defendants.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No. 2:11-0080
Judge Sharp

M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the United
States Penitentiary in Coleman, Florida. He brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Tennessee Department of
Revenue; Robert Slatton, an employee at the Tennessee Department of
Revenue; the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office; and three deputies
with the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office; seeking damages.
On April 24, 2006, the plaintiff was arrested by members of
the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office. The following day, he received
notice of a tax assessment in an amount in excess of $70,000 for
possession of unauthorized substances. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-42801, et seq. When the plaintiff was unable to immediately satisfy
the tax assessment, Robert Slatton, accompanied by deputies from
the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office, began to seize plaintiff’s
property and assets.
On July 24, 2009, the Tennessee Supreme Court declared the tax

on unauthorized substances violative of the Tennessee Constitution.
Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn.2009). The plaintiff now
alleges that his property and assets were seized by the defendants
in violation of his constitutional rights.
The complaint (Docket Entry No.1) was filed on August 8, 2011.
Whether the plaintiff’s claims arose with the seizure of his
property in 2006, or when the tax on unauthorized substances was
struck down in July, 2009, plaintiff’s claims are time-barred by
the one year statute of limitations imposed upon civil rights
claims brought in Tennessee. Merriweather v. City of Memphis, 107
F.3d 396, 398 (6th Cir.1997). Nothing in the complaint suggests
that the statute should be tolled so as to permit the untimely
filing of the complaint.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has failed
to state a timely claim upon which relief can be granted. Dellis v.
Corrections Corp. of America, 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir.2001)(sua
sponte dismissal of an untimely prisoner complaint is appropriate).
Under such circumstances, the Court is obliged to dismiss the
complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.

____________________________
Kevin H. Sharp
United States District Judge