Joe Daniel Holt, Jr. v. Robert M. Baker, 710 F. App'x 422

Plaintiff Joe Holt Jr., an Alabama state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other statutes for alleged unlawful arrest and seizure of money, vehicles, and property based on events from 2004–2007.
The district court screened and sua sponte dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim, concluding the claims were time-barred by Alabama’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.
Holt conceded the two-year limitation applies and that he filed nearly ten years after the last alleged injury, but argued his incarceration since March 29, 2006, tolled the limitations period under Alabama Code § 6-2-8 as a “disability.”
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the § 1915A dismissal de novo and examined Alabama tolling law, statutory amendments, and precedents about imprisonment as a disability for tolling.
The court held Alabama’s § 6-2-8 no longer tolls limitations for imprisonment (post-1996 amendment), recognizing only age under 19 and insanity as disabilities; Holt’s incarceration did not toll the statute and his claims were time-barred.
The court also rejected Holt’s attempts to assert criminal statutes as civil claims and his ADA/§ 1988 arguments, affirmed denial of jury trial, and denied several ancillary requests including certifying a question to the Alabama Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Holt’s § 1983 and related claims are time-barred	Holt: incarceration tolled the statute of limitations under Ala. Code § 6-2-8 (disability tolling)	District/Court: Alabama’s two-year statute governs; tolling for imprisonment no longer applies post-1996 amendment	Held: Claims barred; imprisonment is not a tolling disability under current Ala. law
Whether criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1201, etc.) provide civil causes of action	Holt: can maintain civil suits under those criminal statutes	Court: those provisions are criminal and do not create civil causes of action	Held: Criminal statutes do not provide civil remedies; not viable claims
Whether § 1988 or ADA supports relief	Holt: invoked § 1988 and the ADA as bases for relief	Court: § 1988 is procedural (fee-shifting) not a cause of action; ADA doesn’t apply because incarceration is not a covered disability	Held: § 1988 and ADA claims fail
Whether district court erred by dismissing sua sponte and denying jury/merits	Holt: procedural complaints about dismissal and jury denial	Court: dismissal appropriate because claims facially time-barred; no need to reach merits	Held: No error; dismissal affirmed

Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard for de novo review of § 1915A dismissals)
La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2004) (limitations-based dismissals appropriate when claim is clearly time-barred on the complaint’s face)
McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (§ 1983 claims borrow state personal-injury statute of limitations)
Newberger v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 751 F.2d 1162 (11th Cir. 1985) (apply most analogous state statute of limitations when federal statute lacks one)
Whitson v. Baker, 463 So.2d 146 (Ala. 1985) (addressing imprisonment tolling under former § 6-2-8 and expressing policy views on tolling for prisoners)
Dukes v. Smitherman, 32 F.3d 535 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing pre-1996 Alabama tolling that included imprisonment)
Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004) (recognizing a federal four-year catchall statute of limitations for certain federal claims)
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (treating pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit)
Hanna v. Home Ins. Co., 281 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1960) (criminal statutes do not create civil remedies)