Eric Green v. Calvin Cottrell
204 So. 3d 22
| Fla. | 2016Background
- Inmate Eric Green alleged deputies and a lieutenant at Santa Rosa County Jail failed to protect him from a June 22, 2008 inmate attack; he sought state-law negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress damages and federal claims under § 1983.
- Green filed a pro se complaint in 2012 and alleged he filed a jail grievance but was transferred to a state prison eight days after the incident and could not pursue higher-level grievance responses; he asserted administrative remedies were exhausted.
- The circuit court dismissed the complaint, holding Green’s state-law claims were time-barred under the one-year prisoner-limitations statute, § 95.11(5)(g), and that his federal claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
- The First District affirmed without detailed analysis; Green sought review, arguing the decision conflicted with Calhoun v. Nienhuis regarding the applicable statute of limitations.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review, quashed the First District, held that negligence claims alleging physical injury by jail employees are governed by the four-year § 768.28(14) limitations (not the one-year prisoner provision), and ruled the federal claims were improperly dismissed at the pleading stage because exhaustion is an affirmative defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations applies to state-law negligence claims by an incarcerated person injured by jail employees? | Green: § 768.28(14) (four-year waiver-of-sovereign-immunity period) applies. | County/jail: § 95.11(5)(g) (one-year prisoner limitations for actions relating to conditions of confinement) applies. | Held: § 768.28(14) (four-year) applies to physical-injury negligence claims against government employees; § 95.11(5)(g) does not cover such claims. |
| Does § 95.11(5)(g) encompass all harms occurring in confinement? | Green: one-year limit should not bar physical-injury torts; statute aimed at frivolous inmate suits. | Defendants: statute covers prisoner actions relating to conditions of confinement, so it applies broadly. | Held: The statute’s “conditions of confinement” phrase must be given effect; it was intended to curb frivolous claims and not to cover asserted physical-injury torts by government employees. |
| Were Green’s federal claims properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA at the pleading stage? | Green: Alleged he exhausted remedies; pleading exhaustion is not required. | Defendants: dismissal appropriate because administrative process was not completed and transfer didn’t excuse exhaustion. | Held: Dismissal improper at pleading stage; failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense for defendants to prove and factual disputes about availability/exhaustion preclude dismissal on the complaint’s face. |
| Does Calhoun v. Nienhuis conflict with Green on the limitations issue? | Green relied on Calhoun to support four-year period. | First District disagreed with Calhoun and applied one-year period. | Held: Calhoun’s result (four-year applies) approved, but its reasoning disapproved as factually distinguishable (Calhoun involved a pretrial detainee, not a convicted ‘prisoner’). |
Key Cases Cited
- Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Phillips, 126 So.3d 186 (Fla. 2013) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Mlinar v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 186 So.3d 997 (Fla. 2016) (dismissal reviewed de novo; four-corners rule for pleadings)
- Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins. of New York, 840 So.2d 993 (Fla. 2003) (statutory construction principles: give effect to every phrase)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (PLRA requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; prisoners need not plead exhaustion)
- Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086 (Fla. 2010) (defendant bears burden to prove affirmative defenses)
- Calhoun v. Nienhuis, 110 So.3d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (held four-year § 768.28 applied; court’s reasoning disapproved here though result approved)