# United States Court of A ppe als For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 25 93

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mar vi n Al la n DeVr ie s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Dav id Drie se n; Pat ric k J . Hoy e; Ste ve n L. Po ns et to ; St at e o f Io wa

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__

__ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Sio ux Cit y

__

__ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 7, 2 01 4 Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 10 , 20 14

__

__ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and PERRY, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *

__ __ __ __ __ __
PERRY, Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t * fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.Mar vi n DeVr ie s b ro ug ht th is § 1 98 3 s ui t t wo y ears an d fo ur m on th s af te r th e cl ai m

aro se

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e cas e as ba rred by Io wa’s two -y ear st at ut e of 1

li m it at io ns go ve rn in g pe rs on al in jury cl ai m s. DeVri es ap pe al ed

, arg ui ng th at hi s ti m e fo r fil in g su it was to ll ed du rin g th e pe nd en cy of an ad m in is tra ti ve cl ai m he ha d fil ed

u n d e r th e Io wa Tort Cl ai m s Act. Sect io n 19 83 cl ai m s are go ve rn ed by th e s t a t e ’s

st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r pe rs on al in jury cl ai m s an d m ay be su bjec t to an y to ll in g ru le s th at Io wa co ur ts ha ve ap pl ie d to th at st at ut e. The to ll in g pr ov is io n DeVri es rel ie s on , ho wev er, com es fro m th e Tort Cl ai m s Act, no t from th e pe rs on al in jury st at ut e, an d

so it ha s no ap pl ic at io n he re. W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of th e act io n as ti m e b arre d.

I.

DeVri es br ou gh t th is su it ag ai ns t two Io wa St at e Pat ro l of fic ers an d ot he r st at e of fic ia ls aft er an in ci de nt rel at ed to a tra ffi c st op

. His su it in cl ud ed a nu m be r of st at e

to rt cl ai m s in ad di ti on to a cl ai m un de r 28 U.S.C. § 19 83

. The in ci de nt oc cu rred on Sep te m be r 29
, 20 10
, bu t DeVri es di d no t fil e hi s Co m pl ai nt in th e di st ric t co ur t un ti l
Feb ru ary 14
, 20 13

. Dev rie s al so pu rs ue d an un su cces sf ul ad m in is tra ti ve cl ai m un de r th e Io wa Tort Cl ai m s Act (ITCA) be fo re fil in g hi s fed eral co m pl ai nt

. The di s t r i ct

2

co ur t reject ed DeVri es ’ arg um en t th at a to ll in g pr ov is io n co nt ai ne d in t h e ITCA

ap pl ie d to th is cas e, an d he ld th at th e §1 98 3 cl ai m m us t be di sm is se d be cau se it was br ou gh t aft er th e ex pi rat io n of t h e Io wa two -y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d th at ap pl ie s to

pe rs on al in

jury cl ai m s. Bec au se it was di sm is si ng th e on ly fed eral cl ai m , th e di st ric t

co ur t d ecl in ed to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e rel at ed st at e cl ai m s.

The HONORABLE MARK W

. BENNETT, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

In hi s br ie f, DeVri es al le ge s th at th e ad m i n i s tra ti ve cl ai m was fil ed on 2 Sep te m be r 25
, 20 12
, an d de ni ed on Nov em be r 5, 20 12

. The re is no th in g in th e reco rd
to co rro bo rat e ei th er t ho se da te s o r th e su bs ta nc e o f th e cl ai m

.
-2

-II

.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s de no vo

. Far m Cr ed it Se rv s. of

Am. v. Am. St at e Ban k

, 33 9 F.3 d 76 4, 76 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). The fact s al le ge d in th e co m

pl ai nt are acce pt ed as tru e an d co ns tru ed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e pl ai nt iff

. Ko tt sc ha de v. Ci ty of

Roc he st er , 31 9 F.3 d 10 38
, 10 40 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ).

II I.

In W il so n v.Gar ci a , th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e st at e st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r pe rs on al in

jury to rts was th e ap pr op ria te pe rio d of li m it at io ns fo r al l § 19 83 cas es

. 47 1 U.S. 26 1, 27 6 (1 98 5)

, su pe rs ed ed by st at ut e on ot h er gr ou nd s by 28 U.S.C. §
16 58 (a) as re co gn iz ed in Jo ne s v. R.R. Don ne ll ey & So ns Co

. , 54 1 U.S. 36 9, 37 7– 81 (2 00 4)

. By es ta bl is hi ng th is un ifo rm ru le

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t en de d th e req ui rem en t
th at co ur ts ap p l y t h e m os t an al og ou s st at e st at ut e of li m it at io ns ba se d on th e fact s

un de rlyin g th e sp eci fic § 19 83 cla im

. Se e id

. at 27 3. Ju st ic e O’ Co nn or , in di ss en t,

arg ue d th at th is “ bl un t in st ru m en t” ap pr oa ch co ul d crea te in co ng r u o us li m it at io n
pe rio ds whe rei n a st at e co ur t clai m m ig ht rem ai n vi ab le far beyon d th e an al og ou s §
19 83 cla im

. Id

. at 2 86 (O’Con no r, J., d is se nt in g)

.

DeVr i e s do es no t di sp ut e th at th e st at e pe rs on al in jury st at ut e of li m it at io ns
ap pl ie s, bu t he arg ue s th at th e to ll in g pr ov is io ns of th e ITCA sh ou ld be ap pl ie d to th at
li m it at io ns pe rio d, beca us e hi s § 198 3 acti on is a “ cl ai m ” wit hi n th e m ean in g of the
ITCA.

Io wa’s pe rs on al in

jury li m it at io ns pe rio d pr ov id es : “ Acti on s m ay be br ou gh t
wit hi n th e ti m es he rei n li m it e d

, r e sp ect iv el y , aft er th ei r cau se s accr ue , an d no t
aft erwar ds

, ex cep t whe n ot he rwis e sp eci al ly de cl ared :

. . . Tho se fo un de d on in juri es

-3

-t o t h e p e rs on or rep ut at io n, whe th er ba se d on co nt ract or to rt, or fo r a st at ut o r y

pe na lt y , wit hi n two y ears .” Io wa Co de §§ 61 4.1 ; 61 4.1 (2 ) (2 01 3)

. Lik e m os t st at es , Io wa la w pr ov id es to ll in g fo r cert ai n reas on s, su ch as cl ai m s by a m in or or di sa bl ed

pe rs on , se e § 61 4.8
, or de at h of a de fen d a n t , se e § 61 4.2

. The se ge ne ral to ll in g
pe rio ds , ho wev er, m ak e n o m en ti on of a dm in is tra ti ve cla im s.

The IT C A is a se pa rat e st at ut or y sc he m e pr ov id in g a li m it ed waiv er of

so ve rei gn im m

un it y

. Se e ge ne ra ll

y Io wa Co de Ch

. 66 9. It al lo ws an in jure d pa rty to
br in g cert ai n cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e St at e of Io wa or it s em pl oyees who were act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of em

pl oym en t. The ITCA ha s it s own st at ut e of li m it at io ns se pa rat e fro m th e pe rio d ap pl ic ab le to ge ne ral pe rs on al in jury to rts

. Se e § 66 9.1 3( 3) (“ Thi s se ct io n is th e on ly st at ut e of li m it at io ns ap pl ic ab le to cl ai m s as de fin ed in [th e ITCA].”). The
ITCA req ui res a to rt cl ai m an t to fil e an ad m in is tra ti ve cl ai m be fo re fil in g su it

, an d it

ex te nd s t he ti m e to su e to acco m m od at e th os e ad m in is tra ti ve pro ced ur es

. 3

DeVri es arg ue s th at th e to ll in g pr ov is io ns of th e ITCA sh ou ld be read in to th e
pe rs on al in

jury lim it at io ns pe rio d be cau se hi s § 19 83 act io n is a “ cl ai m ” wit hi n th e

m ean in g o f th e ITCA. Bu t th at wou ld be tru e in m an y § 1 98 3 c as es , bec au se m an y

su ch cas es in vo lv e cl ai m s th at co ul d be br ou gh t as to rt cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e st at e un de r si m il ar l aws

. Cf

. W il so n , 47 1 U.S. at 27 2– 27 3 (“ Alm os t ev ery § 1 98 3 c la im can be
fav or ab ly an al og iz ed to m or e th an on e of th e an ci en t co m m on -la w fo rm s of act io n

.

. . .”). W il so n it se lf was a ci vi l rig ht s case no t u nl ik e th is on e – th e pl ai nt iff al le ge d

[A] cl ai m or s u i t ot he rwis e pe rm it te d un de r th is ch ap te r sh al l be fo rev er 3 ba rred

, un le ss wit hi n two y ears aft er th e cl ai m accr ue d, th e cl ai m is m ad e in writ in g

an d fil ed wit h th e di rect or of th e de pa rtment of m an ag em en t un de r th is ch ap te r. The ti m e to be gi n a su it u n d er th is ch ap te r sh al l be ex te nd ed fo r a pe rio d of si x m on th s fro m th e da te of m ai li ng of no ti ce to th e cl ai m an t by th e at to rn ey ge ne ra l as to th e fin al di sp os it i o n of th e cl ai m or fro m th e da te of wit hd rawal of th e cl ai m un de r

se ct io n 66 9.5
, if th e ti m e to be gi n su it wou ld ot he rwis e ex pi re befo re the en d of the
pe rio d. § 66 9.1 3( 1)

.
-4

-ex ces si ve fo rce du rin g an arre st

. The Co ur t no te d th at Mr. W il so n’s cl ai m co ul d ha ve

be en an al og iz ed to a cl ai m un de r th e “spe ci al New Mex ic o st at ut e au th or iz in g

reco ve ry ag ai ns t th e St at e fo r th e to rts of it s ag en ts .” Id

. at 27 3. In de te rm in in g th at

on ly th e pe rs on al in

jury li m it at io ns pe rio d wou ld ap pl y , W il so n al so reco gn iz ed th at
li m it at io ns pe rio ds wou ld be affe ct ed by to ll in g pr ov is io ns : “ In vi rtu al ly al l st at ut es of li m it at io ns th e ch ro no lo gi cal le ng th o f th e li m it at io n pe rio d is in te rrel at ed wit h

pr ov is io ns reg ard in g t ol li ng , rev iv al , and qu es ti on s o f ap pl ic at io n.” Id

. at 2 69 n.1 7 (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n v. Ry. Exp re ss Age nc y, In c

. , 42 1 U.S. 45 4, 46 4 (1 97 5) ). Yet

no th in g in W

il so n su gg es ts th at a co ur t sh ou ld lo ok to th e to ll in g pr ov is i o n s in th e

st at e’s to rt cl ai m s act whe n ap pl y in g th e pe rs on al in jury st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio d.

W il so n co nt ro ls th e ou tc om e of th is cas e. It do es no t m at te r whe th er a § 19 83

su it co u l d qu al ify as a cl ai m un de r th e ITCA; § 19 83 crea te s a “ un iq ue ly fed eral

rem ed y ,” Mit ch um v. Fo st er , 40 7 U.S. 22 5, 23 9 (1 97 2) , a nd on e “ su pp le m en ta ry to

an y rem ed y an y st at e m ig ht ha ve .” McNee se v. Bd. of Ed.

, 37 3 U.S. 66 8, 67 2 (1 96 3)

. Io wa la w se ts th e li m it at io ns pe rio d at two y ears , an d th e d i st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at DeVri es fil ed hi s co m pl ai nt ou ts id e th at win do w. DeVri es co nc ed es th at th e st at e of Io wa co ul d no t fo rce hi m to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s be fo re br in gi ng hi s § 19 83 cl ai m an d th at hi s do in g so was vo lu nt ary as to th at cl ai m

. Thu s, DeVri es co ul d ha ve fil ed hi s fed eral cl ai m whi le hi s st at e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in gs

w ere pe nd in g. Se e Lo wn v. Bri meyer , 95 6 F.2 d 78 0, 78 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). To h i s de tri m en t, DeVri es ch os e to pu rs ue th e st at e a d m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s an d de ferr ed
fil in g h is § 1 98 3 c la im

un ti l af te r th e st at ut e o f li m it at io ns ha d ru n.

IV.

Fo r th e ab ov e rea so ns , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

-5

-