Dan Richards v. Michael Mitcheff
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16549
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Richards, a Indiana inmate, developed ulcerative colitis and underwent multiple surgeries resulting in removal of his colon and anus, with ongoing abdominal pain.
- He knew by October 2008 that defendants had failed to diagnose his condition, forming the accrual date for a potential §1983 claim.
- Richards filed his §1983 complaint in December 2010, alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
- The district court dismissed as untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), applying Indiana two-year tolling and accrual rules and concluding the suit was time-barred.
- Richards contends tolling for physical incapacity under Indiana law paused the limitations period; the district court offered no analysis of Indiana tolling.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged incapacity tolling and that dismissal at the pleading stage was inappropriate; remand for factual development and potential summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Indiana incapacity tolling apply to §1983 claims? | Richards pleads plausibly that incapacity tolled. | Defendants contend tolling does not apply or is insufficiently pled. | Tolling potentially applicable; cannot resolve on pleadings alone. |
| Was the complaint properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c) for timeliness? | Complaint states plausible tolling and accrual; not barred on pleading. | Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal appropriate if time-barred. | Not properly dismissed; plausibility requires factual development. |
| Is the pleading stage appropriate to resolve tolling questions under Indiana law? | Plausible incapacity allegations should survive; factual record needed. | Pleading sufficiency suffices to resolve timeliness issues. | Pleading stage cannot resolve tolling sans evidence; remand warranted. |
| Should the district court assist Richards in obtaining counsel and experts on tolling facts? | Court should aid access to counsel/experts to develop tolling record. | No special requirement beyond normal proceedings. | Remand for development of tolling evidence and potential counsel assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court 1993) (standard for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court 1976) (medical-care claims under Eighth Amendment)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court 1985) (statutory tolling for personal-injury claims)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court 1989) (federal §1983 accrual and limitations framework)
- Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (Supreme Court 1989) (limitations accrual and tolling principles)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (Supreme Court 2007) (medical-error accrual timing)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court 1979) (claim accrual requires knowledge of injury and cause)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (pleading standard post-Twombly)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (Supreme Court 1980) (pleadings need not anticipate defenses)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court 2007) (adequacy of complaint; liberal pleading standard)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (court may aid counsel on tolling and complex facts)
- Fort Wayne v. Cameron, 370 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. 1997) (state tolling for incapacitated plaintiffs)
- Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 2008) (Indiana tolling for incapacitated persons)