553 F. App'x 888
11th Cir.2014Background
- Moore, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, sues in a Bivens action for federal constitutional rights violations.
- As a inmate at FCC Marianna in 1999, correctional officer Harris compelled Moore to sign a sex offender registration form under duress, misapprehending Moore’s prior conviction; Moore signed with edits (void, I disagree).
- Moore was released on September 17, 1999.
- In 2005 Moore was arrested for failing to register as a sex offender; the Florida Department of Law Enforcement continued to require registration and listed Moore as a sex offender, despite attempts to rectify the matter.
- Moore unsuccessfully sought relief via Florida state court (2005) and a federal declaratory judgment action (2009); in January 2010, after contact with the U.S. Attorney, the Department lifted the registration requirement and removed Moore from the registry.
- Moore filed his Bivens suit in February 2010; the district court dismissed as time-barred because the four-year statute of limitations had lapsed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the Bivens claim accrue? | Moore argues accrual occurred later due to ongoing violations. | Defendants contend accrual in 2005 when Moore learned of the violation. | Accrual occurred in 2005; four-year period ended in 2009. |
| Is Heck tolling applicable to Moore’s claim? | Moore asserts tolling under Heck v. Humphrey. | Heck tolling applies only to criminal judgments, not civil registration. | Heck tolling does not apply here. |
| Are equitable tolling or continuing violations available to extend the period? | Moore seeks equitable tolling or a continuing-violation theory. | Neither equitable tolling nor continuing violations justify extending the period given notice in 2005. | Neither equitable tolling nor continuing violations apply; filing in 2010 was untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Uboh v. Reno, 141 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir. 1998) (accrual occurs when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of claims)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (tolling for criminal judgments only; not applicable here)
- United States v. W.B.H., 664 F.3d 848 (11th Cir. 2011) (sees civil regulatory schemes as non-punitive, not criminal judgments)
- Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (limitations period for §1983 actions in Florida is four years)
- Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary, beyond-control circumstances)
- Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006) (continuing-violation doctrine only where plaintiff could not have known of violation earlier)
- Kelly v. Serna, 87 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 1996) (Bivens actions borrow §1983 limitations period)
- Williams v. Bd. of Regents, 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) (reaffirms accrual principles for §1983/Bivens actions)