Eric Johnson v. City of South Bend, 680 F. App'x 475

Background

In July 2014 Eric Johnson (pro se) sued the City of South Bend and individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged unlawful entries, searches, theft, property damage, and a wrongful arrest that occurred in early 2004.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing the claims were time-barred by Indiana’s 2-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims.
Johnson filed a “Motion for Statutory Exception” and asserted he received daily treatment for bipolar disorder and heroin addiction from Oct. 2004 to Sept. 2013 and invoked equitable tolling/mental incapacity as a basis to excuse the delay.
The district court dismissed the suit, reasoning the claims accrued in 2004, finding no adequate proof of civil commitment or inpatient treatment, and denied Johnson’s reconsideration; it treated the timeliness defense without converting the motion to summary judgment.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit found the district court erred: the limitations defense is an affirmative defense that may require evidence, the district court’s notice to the pro se plaintiff was inadequate under precedent, and Johnson was not given a fair opportunity to present admissible evidence of incapacity for tolling.
The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings so Johnson can be given a proper opportunity to oppose the limitations defense with admissible evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether equitable tolling for mental incapacity avoids the statute of limitations	Johnson: his long-term mental illness/addiction and treatment at Edgewater tolled the limitations until 2013	Defendants: no evidence of civil commitment, inpatient care, or incapacity during the limitations period; statute still bars suit	Court: equitable tolling may apply; dismissal premature without permitting evidence and adequate notice to pro se plaintiff
Whether Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was proper on statute-of-limitations grounds	Johnson: alleged tolling in complaint and motion; factual allegations should be accepted	Defendants: limitations clear; Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal appropriate	Court: statute of limitations is an affirmative defense; Rule 12 dismissal improper when resolution requires evidence; conversion to summary judgment required but did not occur
Adequacy of district court’s notice to pro se plaintiff when dismissal depends on evidence	Johnson: was not warned he needed admissible evidence to oppose timeliness dismissal	Defendants: notice sufficient; Johnson bore burden to prove tolling	Court: notice was inadequate per Timms/Lewis/Bryant/Kinkaid; pro se must be told he cannot rest on pleadings and must submit admissible evidence
Whether district court properly denied reconsideration after Johnson clarified tolling argument	Johnson: clarified he was incapacitated and sought equitable tolling; asked reconsideration	Defendants: no new evidence of incapacity was presented	Court: denial was error because plaintiff lacked fair opportunity to present evidence; remand required

Key Cases Cited

Behavioral Inst. of Ind., LLC v. Hobart City of Common Council, 406 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2005) (Indiana statute of limitations governs § 1983 claims)
Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2012) (state tolling rules apply to § 1983 actions)
Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992) (requirements for notifying pro se plaintiffs when summary-judgment evidence is necessary)
Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982) (pro se notice standards when converting motions to summary judgment)
Bryant v. Madigan, 91 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 1996) (pro se litigant must be warned that he cannot rest on pleadings when summary judgment evidence is required)
Kinkaid v. Vail, 969 F.2d 594 (7th Cir. 1992) (adequate notice requirements before treating a motion as one for summary judgment)
Jones v. Simek, 193 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 1999) (procedural protections for pro se plaintiffs facing dismissal on evidentiary grounds)
City of Fort Wayne v. Cameron, 370 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. 1977) (recognition of equitable tolling for mental incapacity under Indiana law)