IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIE MCNAIR, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 2:06-cv-695-WKW 

 ) 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

________________________________ 

 ) 

JAMES CALLAHAN, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 2:06-cv-919-WKW 

 ) 

RICHARD ALLEN , et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND

AUTHORITY 

 The defendants move this Court for leave to file 

additional grounds and authority to support their 

dispositive motions that are based on the statute of 

limitations. See Docs. 43, 48. The defendants argued in 

those motions that the plaintiffs’ claims are due to be 

summarily dismissed because they were filed after the 

expiration of the two-year statute of limitations. 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 52 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 5
2

 On April 17, 2007, in Jones v. Allen, 2007 WL 1140416, 

Civil Action No. 2:06cv986-MHT (M.D. Ala.)(Slip Copy), 

United States District Judge Myron Thompson denied a 

similar motion requesting summary dismissal based on the 

statute of limitations. The Jones opinion held, among 

other things, that a claim such as the present one, “where 

the plaintiff seeks an injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 to prevent an unconstitutionally tortious act from 

occurring in the future,” cannot be barred by the statute 

of limitations. Id. In addition, the Jones opinion held 

that the statute of limitations does not begin running 

until the plaintiff suffers the “harm” complained of, which 

does not occur until execution. Id. However, the Jones

opinion also emphasized that the plaintiff’s unreasonable 

delay in filing a lawsuit could be considered in the 

context of a laches defense, a defense that takes into 

account “equitable considerations.” Id. at *8. 

 Although defendants respectfully disagree with the

Jones opinion regarding the statute of limitations, even if 

the Court was correct in that case, plaintiff Jones’ 

claims, as well as the claims brought in this case, are 

time-barred by the doctrine of laches. The answer filed in 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 52 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 5
3

this case pleaded the defense of laches along with the 

statute of limitations. See Doc. 8 at p. 7 (“Plaintiff’s 

claims are barred by laches and applicable statute of 

limitations.”). The defenses are similar and defendants 

respectfully believe they should be considered by the Court 

at the same time. Thus, the defendants request leave to 

submit a motion regarding the defense of laches as 

additional grounds to summarily dismiss the plaintiffs’ 

lawsuit. That motion is being filed simultaneously with 

this motion for leave. 

 The defendants continue to believe their dispositive 

motions regarding the statute of limitations should be 

granted. And, the Jones opinion has done nothing to 

diminish that belief. However, in addition to the statuteof-limitations defense, this lawsuit can also be dismissed 

under the doctrine of laches. 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 52 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 5
4

 For the foregoing reasons, the defendants respectfully 

request that the Court grant them leave to file a motion 

requesting summary dismissal based on the doctrine of 

laches. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

TROY KING (KIN047) 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: 

s/ J. Clayton Crenshaw 

J. Clayton Crenshaw (CRE007)

Assistant Attorney General 

s/ James W. Davis 

James W. Davis (DAV103)

Assistant Attorney General 

OF COUNSEL: 

Office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

(334) 242-7300 

(334) 353-8440 Fax 

Email: ccrenshaw@ago.state.al.us 

jimdavis@ago.state.al.us 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 52 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 4 of 5
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on the 24th day of April, 2007, 

a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will 

electronically send a copy of the same to the following: 

Stephanie L. Cohen, Esq. 

Vincent R. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq. 

Heather K. McDevitt, Esq. 

White & Case LLP 

1155 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

Randall Susskind, Esq. 

Cathleen Price, Esq. 

Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama 

122 Commerce Street 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

OF COUNSEL 

S/ J. Clayton Crenshaw 

J. Clayton Crenshaw (CRE007)

Assistant Attorney General 

office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

(334) 242-7300 

(334) 353-8440 Fax 

Email: ccrenshaw@ago.state.al.us

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 52 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 5 of 5