Dorothy Johnson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div.
777 F.3d 838
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- J. Dean Johnson, an intellectually disabled, illiterate 65‑year‑old former City of Memphis sanitation worker, was denied utility service by Memphis Light, Gas & Water (MLGW) in February 2010 for failing to produce a state‑issued photo ID; he had relied on a workplace photo ID and a social security card.
- Johnson lacked a birth certificate and had longstanding cognitive deficits that made obtaining state ID difficult; family members regularly assisted him with daily and legal tasks.
- After denial of service in Feb 2010, Johnson lived without utilities and died of heat stroke in August 2011; plaintiffs (his wife and sister) sued MLGW under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), and Tennessee wrongful death law.
- District court granted summary judgment to MLGW, holding all claims time‑barred by the one‑year limitations period and rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that tolling applied for Johnson’s alleged unsound mind.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that (1) the claims accrued at the February 2010 denial of service and thus would be time‑barred absent tolling, and (2) plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence raising a genuine factual dispute that Johnson was of "unsound mind" under the pre‑2011 Tennessee tolling statute, so tolling must be decided by a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the § 1983 and state claims accrue (triggering the one‑year limitations period)? | Accrual may be later; wrongful death accrual tied to death or discovery | Accrual occurred when MLGW denied utilities Feb 2010; suit filed too late | Accrual occurred at denial in Feb 2010 for § 1983 and state claims; thus claims were time‑barred absent tolling |
| Does Tennessee tolling for "unsound mind" apply to Johnson? | Johnson was effectively of unsound mind and could not understand or protect his legal rights; tolling statute (pre‑2011) therefore applies | Plaintiffs offered insufficient evidence; affidavits are inadmissible or contradicted prior statements | Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence (family and coworker affidavits) to create a genuine fact dispute; tolling is a jury question |
| Are lay affidavits describing mental incapacity admissible to show unsound mind? | Yes — family and coworkers with personal knowledge can testify about capacity | No — such evidence is improper lay opinion or contradicted prior pleadings | Court held the affidavits were permissible factual evidence and adequate to raise a material dispute |
| Did plaintiffs waive tolling by not alleging unsound mind in the complaint? | Failure to plead earlier does not automatically preclude tolling; issue may be raised later | Plaintiffs delayed raising tolling until summary judgment response | Court held delay did not bar the tolling defense; plaintiffs may raise it and have created a triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (establishes accrual rule for § 1983 claims)
- Roberson v. Tennessee, 399 F.3d 792 (borrowed state limitations for § 1983 accrual)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment / genuine issue standard)
- Sherrill v. Souder, 325 S.W.3d 584 (Tenn. standard for tolling when person is of "unsound mind")
- McCroskey v. Bryant Air Conditioning Co., 524 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn. accrual/discovery rule for tort claims)