Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01320/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01320-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert McFadden
Appellee
Albert Schuholz
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1320

___________

Albert Schuholz, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri

*

Robert McFadden; United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellees. * 

___________

Submitted: July 26, 2007

Filed: July 31, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Albert Schuholz appeals the district court’s dismissal, as timebarred, of his complaint brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He also moves

for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. We grant Schuholz leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal, see Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 1997)

(per curiam), and for the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.

Upon de novo review of the record, see Duncan v. Dep't of Labor, 313 F.3d

445, 446 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (standard of review), we find that the district

court erred in concluding that Schuholz’s complaint was time-barred. This is because

the complaint was presented to the district court in a timely manner on June 11, 2005:

Appellate Case: 07-1320 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2007 Entry ID: 3335274
-2-

through what appears to have been a misunderstanding in the clerk’s office, the

complaint was erroneously filed in an existing case, and by the time the error was

discovered and the complaint was correctly filed as a new case on January 5, 2006, the

six-month limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) had expired. When the

complaint was filed as a new action, the district court clerk failed to docket it as

having been filed on June 11, 2005--the date that the complaint was received in the

district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (civil action is commenced by filing complaint

with court), 5(e) (defining “filing” with court).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1320 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2007 Entry ID: 3335274