Woodrow Roberson v. Jeremy Macnicol
698 F. App'x 248
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In May 2012 Roberson was shot, alleges police ignored his requests for help, used excessive force, handcuffed and jailed him for ~2 days, then released without charges.
- Roberson filed a citizens’ complaint, retained counsel, and sought information from the City; Detroit filed for bankruptcy in July 2013, triggering an automatic stay.
- The City sent a proof-of-claim form (returned Feb. 2014) and a "stay modification notice" on Nov. 21, 2014 advising Roberson the stay was lifted; counsel also received a Jan. 2015 notice that the City emerged from bankruptcy.
- Roberson sued two officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force, malicious prosecution) and state tort claims (assault and battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, IIED) on Dec. 2, 2015.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the officers, holding all claims were time-barred; Roberson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are claims time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations? | Roberson argues tolling applies so his Dec. 2015 suit is timely. | Statutes of limitations ran: 2 years for certain state claims, 3 years for §1983 and other state claims; suit filed after deadlines. | Held: Claims accrued May 2012 and suit filed too late; time-barred. |
| Does federal equitable tolling apply? | Robinson asserts equitable tolling because he was not informed the bankruptcy stay was lifted. | Tolling is governed by state law for borrowed §1983 limitations; even under federal equitable tolling, he lacked diligence and merely alleges not receiving notice. | Held: Federal equitable tolling not available/applicable; even if, plaintiff failed to show diligence so tolling denied. |
| Did defendants fraudulently conceal the lifting of the stay? | Roberson contends defendants knew of his claims but did not alert him the stay ended (fraudulent concealment). | City produced proof it sent stay-lift notice; fraudulent concealment not alleged in the complaint. | Held: No fraudulent concealment—notice was sent and claim was not pleaded. |
| Did the bankruptcy toll limitations for the entire bankruptcy period? | Roberson argues bankruptcy tolled limitations for duration of bankruptcy (~491 days). | 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) permits suit within regular limitations or within 30 days after notice of lift—City notified Nov. 21, 2014. | Held: No authority for automatic full-period tolling; applicable extension applied but still expired before Dec. 2015 filing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Memphis Light Gas & Water Div., 777 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2015) (state tolling rules apply to §1983 claims when limitations are borrowed)
- Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Inc., 209 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling applied sparingly)
- Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (attorney negligence and lack of diligence generally do not justify equitable tolling)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (unsworn assertions cannot defeat summary judgment)
- McCune v. City of Grand Rapids, 842 F.2d 903 (6th Cir. 1988) (use of state personal-injury limitations period for §1983 claims)
- Ragan v. Merchs. Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530 (1949) (federal courts borrow state tolling rules for state-law claims)
- Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 838 F.2d 1445 (6th Cir. 1988) (requirements for pleading fraudulent concealment)