484 F. App'x 385
11th Cir.2012Background
- The Davieses, proceeding pro se, filed a Bivens action against USCIS employees in their individual capacities for alleged due process violations in reviewing I-130 and I-485.
- USCIS denied the I-130 petition and I-485 application on May 25, 2006, with district court dismissing as time-barred under the four-year limitations period.
- The Davieses argued accrual did not occur in May 2006 because the denials were not final and because administrative exhaustion was required.
- They also argued they could not bring a Bivens action for damages until their immigration proceedings settled, and that equitable tolling might apply.
- The district court granted summary judgment; the Davieses appealed, challenging accrual timing, exhaustion, tolling, and estoppel theories.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews the district court’s statute of limitations determination de novo and applies Florida’s four-year limit for Bivens actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does accrual occur for a Bivens due-process claim? | Accrual in May 2006 not final; should wait for administrative exhaustion. | Accrual when the operative decision causing deprivation was made (May 2006). | Accrual occurred no later than May 2006. |
| Is equitable tolling available to extend the limitations period here? | Equitable tolling should apply due to prolonged administrative process. | Equitable tolling reserved for extraordinary circumstances; not warranted here. | No equitable tolling applicable. |
| Can the Davieses rely on estoppel to defeat the statute of limitations? | Defendants took inconsistent positions; estoppel should apply. | The two suits are different in posture and theory; no estoppel. | Estoppel rejected; not applicable across the two cases. |
| Does the 2006 case affect accrual or tolling for the current Bivens action? | Should toll or accrual be treated differently due to the related 2006 suit. | Two cases involve different claims; accrual remains May 2006. | Two cases have distinct postures; accrual remains May 2006. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rozar v. Mullis, 85 F.3d 556 (11th Cir. 1996) (accrual for due-process claims is governed by when decision causes deprivation)
- Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (four-year limitations for §1983 actions; accrual doctrine)
- Kelly v. Serna, 87 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 1996) (relation of Bivens to §1983 limitations period)
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (equitable tolling limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) (narrow view of tolling in related contexts)
- Arce v. Garcia, 434 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2006) (tolling and limitations specifics; extraordinary circumstances)
- Rozar v. Mullis, 85 F.3d 556 (11th Cir. 1996) (accrual and knowledge of injury identity of responsible party)
- McCullough v. United States, 607 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)