Hugh McGinley v. Stephen C. Mauriello
682 F. App'x 868
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1998 Kevin McGinley was struck and killed by a UPS truck; plaintiffs filed a wrongful-death suit against UPS on February 13, 2002 but it was dismissed as time-barred under Florida’s two-year statute.
- Plaintiffs contend the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) investigation by Corporal Dennis Jetton misled them to believe UPS was not at fault; they received the original report in 1999 and a conflicting supplement in September 2000.
- By late 2003 plaintiffs had independent expert reports contradicting Jetton and identifying investigative inconsistencies; they also sent letters to state officials in 2000 alleging inadequacy and possible malfeasance in the investigation.
- FHP conducted an internal investigation in 2008, which concluded Jetton mishandled the case; that report was provided to plaintiffs in April 2009.
- Plaintiffs filed a § 1983 suit for denial of access to courts on December 11, 2010, alleging they first learned facts giving rise to the claim on or after December 11, 2006.
- District Court granted summary judgment for defendants as the § 1983 claim accrued earlier and was time-barred; Eleventh Circuit affirmed on statute-of-limitations grounds and did not reach qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 access-to-courts claim is time-barred under Florida’s 4-year residual statute | Plaintiffs waited until discovery of FHP internal report (2009) and thus claim accrued after Dec. 11, 2006; alternatively, equitable tolling/continuing violation | Plaintiffs knew or should have known of injury by end of 2003 (or earlier); limitations expired before 2010 filing | Claim accrued before Dec. 11, 2006; suit barred by statute of limitations |
| Whether plaintiffs’ factual suspicions and later expert reports were insufficient to trigger accrual | Plaintiffs argue incomplete facts delayed accrual until more definitive proof appeared | Defendants argue objective evidence and expert reports available by 2003 put plaintiffs on notice | Court: accrual is when a reasonable person knows or should know of injury; plaintiffs had sufficient facts by 2003 |
| Whether the continuing-violation doctrine applies to toll limitations | Plaintiffs assert continuing violation because ongoing concealment/cover-up extended accrual | Defendants contend plaintiffs suffered a completed violation (denial of access) by 2000 and later events only reveal more evidence | Court: continuing-violation inapplicable; plaintiffs experienced continuing effects, not a continuing violation |
| Whether equitable tolling applies due to defendants’ alleged cover-up and malfeasance | Plaintiffs seek equitable tolling for unavoidable delay caused by defendants’ misconduct | Defendants contend plaintiffs had or should have had knowledge and delay was not unavoidable | Court: equitable tolling not warranted; plaintiffs had sufficient notice well before 2009 |
Key Cases Cited
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (defines elements of an access-to-courts § 1983 claim)
- Mullinax v. McElhenney, 817 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1987) (accrual when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
- Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1999) (Florida’s residual personal-injury statute supplies § 1983 limitations)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard for genuine issues of material fact)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (limitations for § 1983 claims drawn from state personal-injury statute)