Alphonso L. Lee, Jr. v. Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Georgia
699 F. App'x 897
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Alphonso Lee, Jr., a Florida prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal district court.
- The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed it sua sponte for failure to state a claim as time-barred.
- Lee appealed in forma pauperis, arguing the statute of limitations should have been tolled by the continuing violation doctrine.
- Florida’s four-year personal-injury statute of limitations governs § 1983 claims arising in Florida.
- The limitations period begins when a plaintiff knows or should know of the injury and who caused it.
- The district court concluded Lee’s suit was filed well outside the four-year period and that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee’s § 1983 claim is barred by Florida’s statute of limitations | Lee contends the continuing violation doctrine tolls the limitations period | Court (respondent) contended claim was untimely and not saved by continuing-violation tolling | Court held claim time-barred under Florida’s four-year limit |
| Whether the continuing violation doctrine applies | Lee argued ongoing violations extended the filing window | Court argued alleged harms were continuing effects of a single discrete violation | Court held doctrine inapplicable because only continuing effects, not repeated violations, existed |
| Whether a reasonably prudent plaintiff would have been unable to discover the violation | Lee asserted he could not have discovered the violation within the limitations period | Court found a reasonably prudent plaintiff would have been aware of the violation earlier | Court held discovery occurred earlier, so tolling unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard for § 1915A screening and review)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014) (court will not rewrite deficient pro se pleadings)
- Harrison v. Digital Health Plan, 183 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 1999) (statute-of-limitations questions reviewed de novo)
- Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1999) (state limitations period governs § 1983 actions)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989) (§ 1983 borrows forum state’s statute of limitations)
- Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (Florida’s four-year statute applies to § 1983 claims)
- Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006) (limits and application of the continuing violation doctrine)
Outcome: Affirmed dismissal as time-barred; continuing violation doctrine inapplicable.