Pamela Moses v. Shelby County Sheriff Bill Oldham, W2016-01171-COA-R3-CV

Background

Pamela Moses filed a chancery petition on Sept. 2, 2014 seeking injunctive relief and a TRO against Shelby County officials and AlliedBarton; she removed the case to federal court on Sept. 15, 2014, and it was remanded on Mar. 2, 2015.
Moses filed a supplemental petition on Aug. 28, 2015. No summonses were issued on the original petition for Shelby County defendants within one year of filing; AlliedBarton’s only summons related to the original petition was issued Sept. 24, 2015.
Defendants made special appearances asserting lack of service and moved to dismiss; the clerk’s manager (Alissa Holt) supplied affidavits showing absence or late issuance of process.
Trial court denied Moses’s injunctive relief, denied her motion to recuse the judge, and after a bench hearing granted defendants’ motions dismissing the original and supplemental petitions as time‑barred under Rule 3 and the one‑year statute of limitations.
Moses appealed, arguing (among other things) the judge should have recused, Rule 3 did not bar her suit (or should be tolled due to removal), and her supplemental petition/service cured the Rule 3 defect; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether trial judge should recuse	Judge previously presided over Moses’s criminal case and denied her motion to withdraw plea; appearance of partiality requires recusal	Prior acquaintance and adverse rulings do not establish extrajudicial bias or appearance of impartiality	Denial of recusal affirmed: prior familiarity and adverse rulings insufficient; no extrajudicial bias shown
2. Whether original petition tolled statute under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3	Filing of complaint (and later removal) tolled limitations; clerk’s duty to issue summons; removal to federal court and extraordinary circumstances excuse failure to obtain process	No summons was issued within 90 days of filing; Rule 3 requires plaintiff to obtain issuance of process within one year of filing if none issued; failure to do so prevents tolling	Dismissal affirmed: no process issued within Rule 3 time, so original filing did not toll limitations
3. Whether removal to federal court tolled or excused noncompliance with Rule 3	Removal (and remand) should toll limitations or constitute extraordinary circumstance excusing noncompliance	Rule 3 applies regardless of reason for lack of timely process; plaintiff’s improper removal (only defendants may remove) does not excuse noncompliance	Held against Moses: removal did not create an exception; Rule 3’s plain language controls
4. Whether supplemental petition/service cures failure to comply with Rule 3	Service on defendants of supplemental petition should relate back and toll limitations for original claims	Supplemental pleading required court permission under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.04; service on a supplemental pleading does not cure failure to obtain timely process on original petition	Held for defendants: supplemental filing/service did not cure Rule 3 defect because permission was required and service on supplemental pleading cannot retroactively toll original filing

Key Cases Cited

Bean v. Bailey, 280 S.W.3d 798 (Tenn. 2009) (right to fair trial before an impartial tribunal is fundamental)
Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) (appearance of bias standard and objective test for recusal)
Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (pro se litigants must follow same procedural rules as represented parties)
Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (prejudice must stem from extrajudicial source to require recusal)
First Tenn. Bank, N.A. v. Dougherty, 963 S.W.2d 507 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (failure to obtain new process within Rule 3 time bars reliance on original commencement to toll limitations)
Adams v. Carter County Mem. Hosp., 548 S.W.2d 307 (Tenn. 1977) (plaintiff must act to obtain issuance of new process; cannot sit idly by)