Miller v. Ford
697 F. App'x 611
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se § 1983 complaint filed by inmate Rejeania Miller alleging a variety of constitutional violations by Mabel Bassett Correctional Center (MBCC) employees arising from incidents between 2010–2012.
- Complaint filed in October 2014; claims screened by magistrate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
- Magistrate issued Report & Recommendation (R&R) concluding claims were barred by Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations; plaintiff filed an objection and an amended complaint.
- Magistrate again recommended dismissal as time-barred; district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the case.
- Court considered equitable tolling arguments (including tolling for administrative exhaustion) but found Oklahoma law did not support tolling here and, even if it did, plaintiff’s claims remained untimely.
- Plaintiff sought injunctive relief for ongoing conditions at MBCC, but transfer from MBCC rendered those claims moot; appellate court affirmed dismissal and allowed in forma pauperis status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 1983 claims are time-barred by Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations | Miller argued claims could be tolled (e.g., equitable tolling/exhaustion period) | Claims were filed after the two-year limitations period and not tolled | Claims are time-barred; dismissal affirmed because no meritorious tolling shown |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2) on statute-of-limitations grounds without additional process | Miller contended she should be allowed to show tolling | Defendants relied on statute of limitations and magistrate process | Court held district court satisfied Vasquez Arroyo by giving notice and opportunity to explain tolling; dismissal proper |
| Whether administrative exhaustion time can equitably toll the statute of limitations under Oklahoma law | Miller suggested exhaustion period tolled limitations | Defendants argued Oklahoma law does not permit tolling under these facts | Court held Oklahoma law did not permit tolling here and exhaustion would not render claims timely |
| Whether claims for injunctive/declaratory relief regarding MBCC conditions are moot after Miller's transfer | Miller sought ongoing injunctive relief for MBCC policies/conditions | Defendants argued transfer mooted the injunctive claims because relief could not redress former inmate | Court held injunctive/declaratory claims are moot and dismissed them |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez Arroyo v. Starks, 589 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir.) (district court may not dismiss statute-of-limitations prisoner § 1983 claim sua sponte without notice/opportunity to be heard)
- McCarty v. Gilchrist, 646 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir.) (Oklahoma two-year statute of limitations governs § 1983 claims)
- Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir.) (transfer of prisoner can moot claims for injunctive/declaratory relief tied to former facility)
- Ind v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 801 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir.) (mootness is a jurisdictional threshold and must exist at all stages of the proceeding)