Larry Bryant v. City of Chicago, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3866

Background

In August 2010 Bryant was stopped, searched, arrested for possession of a controlled substance, arraigned Sept 23, and his case was dismissed Dec 13 after a successful motion to suppress; he later remained incarcerated on other charges.
On Sept 18, 2012 Bryant (pro se, incarcerated) filed a § 1983 suit pro se against the City of Chicago, former Supt. Jody Weis, and two unnamed officers (John Doe and Richard Roe) alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution; he also moved to compel disclosure of the officers’ names.
The district court screened the complaint, found statute-of-limitations issues under Illinois law (two-year limitations for § 1983); the filing date was treated as Sept 18, 2012 but the court concluded most claims were time-barred absent tolling or identification of defendants.
Bryant argued he had been diligent: he attempted to obtain the officers’ names via letters, FOIA requests, and a motion to compel, and also cited difficulties mailing the complaint from prison; the district court granted 60 days equitable tolling for postage issues but denied tolling for incarceration and lack of resources.
The district court dismissed the false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims as untimely, finding Bryant had not identified defendants within the tolled period and denying reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion by failing to rule on Bryant’s timely motion to compel and that equitable tolling was warranted because Bryant acted with reasonable diligence in seeking the officers’ identities.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether equitable tolling applies to Bryant’s § 1983 claims	Bryant: incarceration, lack of resources, and diligent efforts to obtain officers’ names justify tolling	City: Illinois law does not toll for incarceration or lack of resources; Bryant failed to identify defendants timely	Held: Tolling appropriate because Bryant was reasonably diligent in seeking officers’ identities and the court should have tolled while his motion to compel was pending
Whether district court abused discretion by not ruling on motion to compel	Bryant: timely motion to compel was necessary to identify defendants and should have been addressed before dismissal	City: dismissal proper given limitations and lack of named defendants	Held: District court abused discretion by disregarding Bryant’s discovery request that was necessary and prejudicial to him
Whether inmate pro se status alone justifies tolling	Bryant: imprisonment and limited access to resources/assistance hindered timely filing	City: incarceration and poverty do not constitute disabilities for tolling under Illinois law	Held: Incarceration alone not an automatic toll, but combined with a timely pending motion to obtain identifying info and reasonable diligence, tolling is appropriate
Whether dismissal without allowing amendment was futile	Bryant: he could have amended once he obtained officers’ names; he had pending requests to obtain them	City: plaintiff missed deadlines; granting extension would be futile	Held: Dismissal premature because plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to obtain the information that prevented timely naming of defendants; remand required

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. Giesen, 956 F.2d 738 (7th Cir.) (inmate status does not automatically toll limitations)
Tucker v. Kingston, 538 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (lack of resources not ordinarily an extraordinary circumstance for equitable tolling)
Deere & Co. v. Ohio Gear, 462 F.3d 701 (7th Cir.) (abuse of discretion where court ignores timely discovery requests essential to case)
Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir.) (failure to rule on specific discovery requests that would produce necessary evidence can be abuse of discretion)
Donald v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548 (7th Cir.) (equitable tolling may apply where plaintiff awaits court action necessary to identify defendants)
Fid. Nat. Title Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Howard Sav. Bank, 436 F.3d 836 (7th Cir.) (equitable tolling postpones filing deadline when plaintiff cannot discover injurer’s identity despite reasonable diligence)
Ray v. Maher, 662 F.3d 770 (7th Cir.) (apply forum state’s statute of limitations and tolling rules in § 1983 cases)
Williams-Guice v. Bd. of Educ., 45 F.3d 161 (7th Cir.) (limitations suspended while judge rules on a motion affecting the filing of the case)
Becker v. I.R.S., 34 F.3d 398 (7th Cir.) (plaintiff must show prejudice from court’s failure to consider discovery request)