Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02974/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02974-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2974

___________

Lloyd R. Trackwell, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

David Domina; Craig Howell; Domina *

Law Office, P.C., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendants-Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2006

 Filed: May 9, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lloyd R. Trackwell appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of his legal

malpractice claim against David Domina, Craig Howell, and Domina Law Office, P.C.

(“Domina Law”). Trackwell argues the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of

the United States Constitution require that Nebraska’s two-year statute of limitations

governing professional malpractice claims be tolled during the pendency of a

Appellate Case: 05-2974 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2006 Entry ID: 2042434
2

Jurisdiction was founded on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

-2-

defendant’s criminal conviction in cases where that conviction is ultimately vacated.

We affirm.

In January 2001, a jury found Trackwell guilty in a criminal proceeding in the

District Court for Lancaster County, Nebraska. Trackwell was represented at trial by

Domina and Howell of Domina Law. On September 5, 2001, Trackwell was

sentenced to four to eight years’ imprisonment. Trackwell directly appealed his

conviction pro se and the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a

new trial on the grounds that a required lesser-included offense instruction had not

been given. State v. Trackwell, No. A-01-1174, 2003 WL 22231883 (Neb. Ct. App.

Sept. 30, 2003), review overruled (Feb. 19, 2004). On March 9, 2004, Trackwell was

released from incarceration pending retrial. The State of Nebraska elected not to retry

Trackwell and dismissed his case on August 11, 2004.

On August 25, 2004, Trackwell filed an action in federal district court against

Domina, Howell, and Domina Law, alleging they were professionally negligent while

representing him from August 2000 through February 2001.2

 The defendants moved

to dismiss Trackwell’s complaint, arguing that the two-year statute of limitations

governing professional negligence claims in Nebraska had expired. See Neb. Rev.

Stat. § 25-222. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the

grounds that Trackwell’s action was untimely.

We review a district court’s decision granting a motion to dismiss de novo.

Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005). As the district court noted,

under Nebraska law the professional negligence statute of limitations is not tolled

during a criminal defendant’s incarceration. See Gordon v. Connell, 545 N.W.2d 722,

726 (Neb. 1996). Trackwell argues, however, that requiring him to file a civil legal

malpractice claim during the pendency of his criminal conviction violated his right to

Appellate Case: 05-2974 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2006 Entry ID: 2042434
-3-

equal protection and due process. According to Trackwell, such a rule required him

to diagnose his own legal malpractice problem, prepare the pleadings, and seek a stay

while his criminal appeal was pending—a series of steps he asserts imposes “an

extreme and necessarily unconstitutional burden on criminal defendants who believe

their criminal [cases have been] handled negligently.”

As the district court pointed out, however, Trackwell knew that his conviction

had been reversed and remanded for a new trial before the two-year statute of

limitations had run, but waited nearly a year to file his malpractice claim. The district

court held that “[n]o denial of due process is apparent from these facts.” We agree.

Under Nebraska law, Trackwell was obligated to file his malpractice complaint

“within two years of his attorney’s last day of service in the matter in which the

alleged negligence occurred.” Seevers v. Potter, 537 N.W.2d 505, 511 (Neb. 1995).

The Nebraska Supreme Court has clearly directed that, when criminal defendants have

preserved their claims in this manner, they “can and should seek a stay in the civil suit

until the criminal case is resolved.” Id. Because this process comports with

constitutional requirements, Trackwell’s constitutional claims fail.

Trackwell also argues that the district court erred by refusing to allow him to

amend his pleadings to offer additional details regarding facts alleged in the

complaint. He maintains these additional details would warrant the conclusion that

the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. As the district court observed,

however, even if Trackwell added more details to his pleadings, an equitable tolling

claim could not be successful.

Having carefully reviewed the record and applicable law, we conclude the

district court did not err in its conclusions of law. We therefore affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2974 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/09/2006 Entry ID: 2042434