FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 18 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 04- 15564 & 05- 10855 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 03 -033 86 -C V -J E C -1 I N Y A N G P E T E R O D U O K , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s S E A N P H I L L I P S , I n d iv id u a lly a n d I n h is o f f ic ia l C a p a c ity , D E K A L B P O L I C E D E P A R T M E N T , D E K A L B D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C S A F E T Y , B O B B Y B U R G E S S , E D D I E M O O D Y , e t a l.,
D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m be r18, 2005)We find no abuse of discretion in the district cour t’s denial of O duok’s motion for 1 recusal. Cf. United States v. Berg er, 375 F .3d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004) (re viewingdistrict judge ’s dec ision on mot ion to recusefor a buse of discretion). We likewise find no e rror in the dis tric t c ourt ’s de nial of

Od uo k’ s mo tio n to re mand
. Simp ly put, re mand wa s n ot w arrante d b e c a

us e Oduok stated fe deral claims based o n 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983 and, acc ording ly , the district court ha d orig inal juri sdic tio n o ve r t hea c tio n. Se e 28 U. S.C. §§ 14 41 (b ) a nd 14 46 (b ). We d e c lin e to c on sid e r O du ok ’s oth e r arguments a s the y are raise d for the fi rs t time on a pp e a l and they do no t f

a ll within any

of the e x ceptions wehave recognized to the rule that we wi l l n o t consider issues not raised in the district c ourt first. See Ac cess Now , Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 13 2 4, 1331-32 (11th Cir. 2004). 2 B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Inya ng P et erO du ok , p ro ce ed ing p ro se , appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s order d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c iv il r ig h ts s u it a g a in s t S e a n P h illip s , i n d iv id u a lly
a n d in h is o f

f ic ia l c a p a c ity a s a D e K a l b C o u n ty p o lic e o f f ic e r ; th e D e K a lb C o u n ty P ol i c e D e pa r t m e nt ; the D e K a l b C ounty D e pa r t m e ntof P ubl i c S afe ty ; V e r non J o n e s , in d iv id u a lly a n d in h i s o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity a s c h ie f

e x e c u tiv e o f

f ic e ro f D e K a lb C o u n ty; B o b b y B u rg ess, i n d i v i d u al l y an d i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; E d d ie M o o d y, i nd i vi du al l y a nd i n h is o ff ic i al capaci ty a s c hi ef

of the D eK al b C ou nt y P ol i ce D e pa r t m e nt ; a nd J ohn D oe s 1 -3 ( c ol l e c t i ve l y , “ D e f e nda nt s ” )
. O n a ppe a l , O duok
c ha l l e nge s ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s d i sm i ss a l ba s e d on the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons , ( 2) the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of P hi l l i ps b as ed on re s j ud i ca t a, and (3) t he di stri ct
c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f

Mo o d y b a s e d o n c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l
. Af t e rth o r o u g h r e v i e w, 1

w e a f f i r m.3

F irst, O du ok chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of hi s c om pl ai ntbase d
on the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s. H e a rgues thatthe l i m i t at io n s p er io d w as t ol l ed dur i ng the pe nde nc y o f an act i on he f i l e d i n 2000 a ga i ns tP hi l l i ps i ndi vi dua l l y a nd
c e r ta in C o b b C o u n ty o f f ic e r s a n d e n titie s , a n d th a t th e in s ta n t a c tio n r e la te s b a c k to the 2000 a c t i on, w hi c h w a s di s m i s s e d by the di s tr i c tc our t . H e assert s tha tthe D efen d an t s are est o p p ed fro m arg u i n g th e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s as a d e fen se be c a us e the y pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the 2000 a c t i on. W e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l u n d e rR u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te
a c l a i m de n o v o , acc e pt i ng the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nta s true a nd c ons trui ng the m i n the l i ght m os t f a vor a bl e t o the pl a i nt i f

f
. S e e H i l l v. W hi t e, 3 2 1 F
. 3 d 1 334, 1 3 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . A c o m p la in t s h o u l d n o t b e d is m is s e d p u r s u a n t to R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f

o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u n l e s s i t a p p e a r s b e y o n d a d o u b tt ha t t he p la in tif f c a n p r o v e n o s e t o f

f a c ts in s u p p o r t o f

h is c la im th a t w o u ld e n title h im to
r e l i e f. S ee Jacka m v. H os p. C orp. of A m . M i de a s t , L t d. , 800 F
. 2d 1577, 1579 (11t h C i r. 19 86 ). O u r revi ew of a di stri ctcourt ’ s i nt erpret at i on and app l i ca t i on of a st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s i s al so d e n o v o . S ee U n i t ed S t at es v . A m er ic a n S t at es In s. C o ., 2 5 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )
.

“ F eder al courts ap p l y thei r f orum st at e’ s s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s f or pers on al i nj ur y a c t i ons t o a c t i ons br oughtpur s ua ntt o 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1983[
. ] ” U boh v. R e no,4

14 1 F
. 3d 10 00 , 10 02 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). “ A st atut e of l i m i t at i on s b eg in s to ru n w hen t h e c a u s e o f

a c tio n a c c ru e s . T h e q u e s tio n o f w h e n th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d b e g in s to
run, h o w e ve r , i s one of f e de r a l l a w . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i t t e d)
. “ [ T ] he s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons doe s notbe gi n t o run u n t i l the f a c t s w hi c h w oul d s uppor ta c a us e of
a c t i on a r e ap p aren tors houl d be a ppa r e ntt o a pe r s on w i th a r e a s ona bl y prude nt
r e ga r d f orhi s r i ght s . ” R oz a rv. M ul l i s , 85 F
. 3d 556, 561- 62 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d )
. T h e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s f o r p erso n al i n

j u ry act i o n s i n G eo rg i a i s tw o years. S ee O
. C
. G
. A
. § 9 -3 -3 3
. T h e G eo rg i a ren ew al st atu t e p ro v i d es: W h en an y c as e has been com m ence d i n ei ther a st at e or f eder al court w ithi n t he appl i ca bl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s a nd the pl ai nt i ff di sc on ti n u es or di sm i ss es the sa m e, i tm ay be re com m ence d i n a court o f th is s ta te o rin a f

e d e r a l c o u r t e ith e rw i th in th e o r ig in a l a p p lic a b le pe r i od o f l i m i t a t i ons orw i thi n s i x m onths a f t e rthe di s c ont i nua nc e or di s m i ssal , w hi c he ve ri s l a t e r , s ubj e c tt o the r e qui r e m e ntof pa y m e ntof c os t s i n t h e o r i gi na l a c t i on a s r e qui r e d by s ubs e c t i on ( d) of C ode S e c t i on 9-1 1 -4 1 ; p ro v i d ed , h o w ev er, i f t he di s m i s s a l or di s c ont i nua nc e oc c ur s a f t e rthe e xpi r a t i on of

the a ppl i c a bl e pe r i od of l i m i t at i on , thi s pri vi l ege of r enew al shal l be exerc i se d o nl y once. O
. C
. G
. A
. § 9 -2-61(a) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). F ed er al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 15 (c ) p ro v i d es: ( c ) R e l a t i on B a c k of

A m e ndm e nt s . A n a m e ndm e ntof a pl e a di ng re l at es back t o t he dat e of the ori gi nal pl ea di ng w hen ( 1) r e l a t i on ba c k i s pe r m i t t e d by the l a w tha tpr ovi de s the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons a ppl i c a bl e t o the a c t i on, or5

(2 ) the c l a i m orde f

e ns e a s s e r t e d i n the a m e nde d pl e a di ng a r os e outof the cond uct , tran sa ction, or occurre nce s etforth o r a t t em pt ed t o b e s et f or th i n the or i gi na l pl e a di ng, or ( 3 ) th e a m e n d m e n t c h a n g e s th e p a r ty o r t h e n a m in g o f th e p a r ty a g a in s t w h o m a c la im is a s s e r te d if t h e f o r e g o in g p r o v is io n ( 2 ) is s a t i s f i e d a n d , w i th i n th e p e r i o d p r o v i d e d b y Ru l e 4 ( m) f o rs e r v i c e of the s um m ons a nd c om pl a i nt , the pa r ty t o b e b roughti n by a m e ndm e nt ( A ) ha s r e c e i ve d s uc h n o t i ce of the i ns t i tut i on of

the a c t i on tha tthe p art y w i l l n o tb e p rej u d i ced i n m ai n t ai n i n g a d efen se o n th e m eri t s, a nd ( B ) kne w ors houl d ha v e k n o w n tha t , butf ora m i s t a ke c onc e r ni ng the i de nt i ty of

the pr op er p ar ty , the a c t i on w oul d ha ve be e n br ought ag ai n stth e p art y. F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 ( c ) . “C o n g r e s s in te n d e d R u le 1 5 ( c ) to b e u s e d f o ra r e la tiv e ly
narr ow pu rpose; i tdi d n oti nt end for t he rul e t o b e so broad t o al l ow an am ended pl e a di ng t o a dd a n e nt i r e l y ne w c l a i m ba s e d on a di f f e r e nts e tof

f a c t s. ” F arri s v. U n i t ed S t at es, 3 3 3 F
. 3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 5 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). “ [A ] n u n t i m el y cl ai m m u st h a ve m or e i n c om m on w i th the t i m e l y f i l e d c l a i m tha n the m e r e f a c t tha t the y aro se
ou t o f t h e sa m e tr i a l ors e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ng” a nd “ m us tha ve a r i s e n f r om the ‘s a m e s e t o f

f a c ts ’ a s th e tim e ly f

ile d c la im , n o t f

r o m s e p a r a te c o n d u c t o ra s e p a r a te
o c c u r r e n c e in ‘b o th tim e a n d ty p e .’” I d
. H ere, t h e di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r rby gr a nt i ng the D e f e nda nt s ’ 12( b) ( 6)
m ot i on t o di s m i s s ba s e d on the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons . O duok’ s c a us e of a c t i on
ac crued o n A ug ust28 , 19 98 , w hen h e w as i nj ured w hi l e bei ng ar re st ed. H e f i l ed the i nst antac t i on i n st at e c ou rtov erfi ve ye ar s l at er , on O ct ob er6, 20 03 , w hi ch w asWe a reun pers ua de d b y

Od uo k’ s a dditi on a l argument - - t hat th e 20 00 a c tio n e qu ita bly 2 tolled th e s t atute of limitations -- bec ause hehas not demonstrate d extraordinary circ umstances beyond his c ontrol and avoidable e ven with dilige nce. SeeCabello v. Fernande z-L arios, 402 F .3d 11 48 , 1 15 5 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 5) (“ Eq uit a bletol lin gis ap prop ri ateon ly in ‘ e xtra ordin ary

c irc ums tanc e s’ that are both beyond the plaintiff’s control and unavoidable e ven with dilige nce.”(internal quotation marks omitted)). We obser ve that Odouk ha s demonstrated no b as i s , let alone e x traordina ry c irc ums tanc e s, to e xpla in why he c ou ld n ot h avebrou ght t heins tant c la ims a g a ins t th e De fend ants in the 2000 action.
Be causewe f

ind the instant action barred by the statute of limitations, we nee d not, and 3 do not, rea ch the district cour t’s alternate grounds for dismissing O duok’s claims ag ainst Defendant Phill ip s a s p r e c lu d e d

b y r e s ju d ic ata

an d a g a in s t D e f

e n d ant M o o dy

a s p r e c lu d e d

b y c o llatera l e sto pp e l. 6 b e y o n d G e o r g ia ’s a p p lic a b le tw o - y e a rlim ita tio n s p e r io d . N e ith e rth e G e o r g ia
ren ew al st atu t e n o r th e rel at i o n b ack d o ctri n e ren d ers O d u o k ’s co m p l ai n tt i m el y. S i m p l y p u t , b y i t s p l ai n t erm s, th e G eo rg ia r e n e w al st atu t e d o es n o tap p l y b ecau se the f e de r a l c l a i m s i n O duok’ s 2000 act i on w e r e di s m i s s e d on the m e r i t s by the d istrict co u rt, n o t O d u o k as O .C .G .A . § 9
- 2
- 6 1 ( a) re q u ires . M o re o v er , O d u o k ’s i nst ant com pl ai nt , w hi ch w as fi l ed i n s t at e court ov er three ye ar s af ter th e d is m i ss al of the 20 00 ac t i on and w hi ch nam es ent i re l y di ff er entdefe nd ant s, do es no tm ee t the r e qui r e m e nt s of

R ul e 15( c )
. T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r rby 2 g ran t i n g th e D efen d an t s’ m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss b ased o n th e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s. 3 AF F I RME D.