Early v. Baker, 2013 Ark. 505

Appellant Reginald R. Early, an inmate, filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers Baker and Ferricher in both individual and official capacities, plus state-law claims of assault, battery, and negligence.
The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and Early appealed the dismissal.
Early alleged excessive force and failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment, and abuse of authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, stemming from an incident on January 11, 2009.
In an amended complaint, Early added a state-law negligence claim against Ferricher and purportedly dropped the abuse-of-authority claim.
Defendants moved to dismiss on statute of limitations and immunity theories; Early argued the Arkansas savings statute revived claims from a prior case filed March 4, 2011.
The prior case was dismissed for failure to obtain service, and later relief-from-judgment actions showed a lack of knowledge of service rules; the record did not establish that the prior action alleged the same claims or named Ferricher.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the § 1983 and negligence claims time-barred?	Early argues savings statute tolls.	Defendants contend claims are time-barred by three-year limit.	Yes; claims barred by statute of limitations.
Did the savings statute toll the limitations period?	Savings statute allowed a new action within one year for the same cause.	No tolling because no same cause proven and prior action not properly commenced.	No tolling; failed to show same cause and proper commencement.
Are the assault and battery claims time-barred?	Sought revival under savings statute for time-barred assault claims.	Assault claims time-barred by one-year limit; savings statute cannot revive already time-barred claim.	Time-barred; not revived by savings statute.

Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (accrual of § 1983 claims governed by state personal-injury statute)
Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004) (supersedes the Wilson accrual framework in part)
Forrest City Mach. Works, Inc. v. Lyons, 315 Ark. 173, 866 S.W.2d 372 (1993) (savings statute applicability to the same cause)
Carton v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 295 Ark. 126, 747 S.W.2d 93 (1988) (same-cause requirement under savings statute)
Oliver v. Miller, 239 Ark. 1043, 396 S.W.2d 288 (1965) (time limits and savings-statute considerations)
Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC Co., 353 Ark. 701, 120 S.W.3d 525 (2003) (savings statute cannot revive if not same cause)
Rettig v. Ballard, 2009 Ark. 629, 362 S.W.3d 260 (2009) (considerations for tolling under savings statute)
Thomson v. Zufari, 325 Ark. 208, 924 S.W.2d 796 (1996) (commencement for purposes of savings statute requires timely filing and service)
Hicks v. Clark, 316 Ark. 148, 870 S.W.2d 750 (1994) (service deficiencies prevent commencement under savings statute)
State v. Robinson, 2013 Ark. 425, S.W.3d (2013) (claims not properly raised for new consideration on appeal)