FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T AUGUST 3, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 11 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 0- cv -0 40 23 -CAP
CARLOS GARZA,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

vers us
T. SCOTT HUD SON, U.S. Pro ba ti on Offic e, Atl an ta , GA, W ILLIAM H. THOMAS, JR., As si st an t U.S. Att or ne y , W ILLIAM A. MORRI SON, Att or ne y at Law, BEVERLY B. MARTIN, Ju dg e, PHILLIP J ACKSON, In m at e Sy st em s M an ag er, Su pe rv is or , et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 3, 2 01 1)Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:
Carl os Garza ap pe al s pr o se th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s ci vi l rig ht s

act io n, br ou gh t pu rs ua nt to Bi ve ns v. Si x Unk no wn Nam ed Age nt s of Fed

. Bu reau

o f N a r c o t ic s, 40 3 U.S. 38 8 (1 97 1) , as ti m e-b arre d. Garza ’s ci vi l rig ht s co m pl ai nt , fil ed o n D e c em

be r 7, 20 10 , ari se s ou t of in fo rm at io n co nt ai ne d in hi s Pres en te nc e
In ve st ig at io n Rep or t (“ PSI” ) co m pi le d in 20 04 , whi ch sa y s th at Garza is a Mex ic an

na ti on al an d no t, as he cl ai m ed , a Uni te d St at es ci ti zen

. On ap pe al , Garz a a l le ge s

erro r by th e di st ric t co ur t in it s di sm is sa l of hi s co m pl ai nt as un ti m el y be cau se whi le
he co ul d ha ve fil ed hi s ci vi l rig ht s co m pl ai nt up on th e ex ha us ti on of hi s
ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s in Aug us t 20 06 , he sh ou ld no t ha ve be en ex pe ct ed to fil e hi s

co m pl ai nt un ti l th e di sp ut e reg a r d i n g hi s na ti on al it y was res ol ve d an d hi s st at us

co rrec te d. Aft er ca refu l re vi ew, we affi rm

. The di st ric t cou rt’s in te rp ret at io n and ap pl ic at io n of the st at ut e o f li m it at io ns

are rev ie wed de no vo

. Bro wn v. Ga. Bd

. of Pard on s & Paro le s, 33 5 F.3 d 12 59 , 12 61

n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

A Bi ve ns act io n i s g ov ern ed by the same sta tu te of l im it at io ns th at go ve rn s a

co m pl ai nt br ou gh t pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. Kell y v. Sern a, 87 F.3 d 12 35 , 12 38 (1 1t h Ci r. 1 9 9 6 )

. Geo rg ia pl aces a two -y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d on pe rs on al in jury

2act io ns , whi ch is ap pl ic ab le to bo th § 19 83 an d Bi ve ns cl ai m s. Id

. A cau se of act io n

accr ue s, an d th ereb y se ts th e li m it at io ns cl oc k ru nn in g, whe n “ th e fact s whi ch wou ld

su pp or t a cau se of act io n are ap pa ren t or sh ou ld be ap pa ren t” to a reas on ab ly pr ud en t

pe rs on

. Bro wn, 33 5 F.3 d at 12 61 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Gen eral ly, th is wil l be at th e

po in t at whi ch th e pl ai nt iff kn ew or h a d reas on to kn ow th at an in jury ha d be en
in fli ct ed an d by who m

. Ro zar v. Mu ll is , 85 F.3 d 55 6, 56 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ). In th os e

cas es in whi ch th e st at ut e of l i m it at io ns ha d ex pi red pr io r to fil in g, a di sm is sa l fo r
fri vo li ty is warra nt ed an d th e co ur t ne ed no t wait fo r th e li m it at io ns is su e to be rai se d

in a de fen si ve pl ead in g if th e is su e is ap pa ren t on th e face of th e co m pl ai nt

. Cl ark v.
Ga. Pard on s & Paro le s B d., 9 15 F.2d 63 6, 6 40 -4 1 n .2 (1 1t h C ir.1 99 0)

. In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t co r r e c t l y di sm is se d Garza ’s co m pl ai nt as
ti m e-b arre d. The di st ric t co ur t ’s d e te rm in at io n th at Garza ’s cau se of act io n ha d

accr ue d by no la te r th an Aug us t 29 , 20 06 -- th e da te hi s la st ap pe al to th e Bu reau of

Pri so ns reg ard in g c ha ng in g h is cit iz en sh ip st at us in hi s PS I was co nc lu de d -- i s n ot
di sp ut ed by Garza in hi s br ie f. Garza di d no t fil e hi s co m pl ai nt un ti l Decem

be r 7,

20 10 , m or e th an a y ear a fte r th e ex pi rat io n o f th e st at ut e o f li m it at io ns pe rio d.

Th e fact th at Garza so ug ht to res ol ve th e di sp ut e ab ou t hi s ci ti zen sh ip st at us
be fo re fil in g hi s c o mpla in t was no t su ffi ci en t to to ll th e li m it at io ns pe rio d. The re

were no “ ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces ” pr ev en ti ng Garza fro m ti m el y fil in g, no r do es

3Garza all eg e an y on ap pe al , and th eref

or e th e ap pl ic at io n o f eq ui ta bl e to ll in g o f th e
li m it at io ns pe rio d wou ld no t be ap pr op ria te

. See Arce v. Garci a, 43 4 F.3 d 12 54 , 12 61 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n do ct rin e al so do es no t

ap pl y he re to sa ve Garza ’s c om pl ai nt

. Ass um in g arg ue nd o th at an y ha rm s res ul te d
fro m th e di sp ut e ov er hi s ci ti zen sh ip , th os e ha rm s oc cu rred no la te r th an th e da te on
whi ch Garza ex ha us te d hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, Aug us t 29 , 20 06

. The fact th at

an y al le ge d co ns eq ue nc es fro m th os e ha rm s m ay ha ve carr ie d ov er in to th e fu tu re di d

no t s erv e to ex te nd th e li m it at io ns pe rio d. See Lov et t v. Ray, 32 7 F.3 d 11 81 , 1 18 3 (1 1t h C ir. 20 03 ) (“ The cri ti cal di st in ct io n in th e co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n ana lysis

. . . is
whe t h e r th e pl ai nt iff

[ ] co m pl ai n[ s] of th e pr es en t co ns eq ue nc e of a on e ti m e
vi ol at io n, whi ch d o e s no t ex te nd th e li m it at io ns pe rio d, or th e co nt in ua ti on of th at
vi ol at io n in to th e pr es en t, whi ch do es .”) (q uo ta ti on om it te d). A cc or ding ly, we affi rm

. AFFIRMED.

4