# Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #030

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 27th day of June, 2018 , are as follows:

PER CURIAM :

2017 -C-1 875 MARLON EAGLIN v. EUNICE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. (Par ish of St. Landry) In this case , we are called upon to decide whethe r the false arrest an d fals e imprisonment claims of Paul Powell are prescribed. For the reasons that follo w, we conclude the ac tion is prescribed

. Accordingly, we revers e th e judgment of th e court of appeal and reinstate the judgment of the district court.

JUDGMENT OF COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED. TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED.
JOHNSON, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons. HUGHES, J., dissents and assigns reasons.0 6 / 2 7 / 1 8



### S UPREME COURT OF LOUIS IANA

No . 2 0 1 7 -C-1 8 7 5

MARLON EAGLIN

VERS US
EUNICE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARIS H OF S T. LANDRY

PER CURI AM

In t h i s cas e, w e are cal l ed u p o n t o deci d e wh et h er t h e fal s e arres t an d fal s e

i m p ri s o n m en t cl ai m s o f Pau l Po wel l are p res cri b ed

. Fo r t h e reas o ns t hat fo l l o w, we

co n cl u d e t h e act i o n i s p res cri b ed

. Acco rd i n g l y , we rev ers e t h e ju d g m en t o f t h e co u rt

o f ap p eal an d rei n s t at e t h e ju d g m en t o f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt

.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STORY

Th e rel ev an t fact s o f t h is cas e are l arg el y u n d i sp u ted

. On M ay 4 , 2 0 1 5 , t h e

Eu n ice Po l i ce Dep art m en t arres t ed M arl o n Eag l i n , Pau l Po w el l , an d t wo ot h ers an d

c h a r g e d t h em wi t h s eco n d d eg ree m urd er. M r. Eag l i n an d M r. Po wel l rem ai n ed

i m p ri s o n ed u n t i l t h ei r rel eas e o n Au gu s t 2 1 , 2 0 1 5

.
On Ap ri l 2 9 , 2 0 1 6 , M r. Eag l i n fi l ed t he i ns t an t s u i t ag ai n s t t h e Eu ni ce Po l i ce
Dep art m en t , t h e Ci ty

o f Eu n i ce, an d Ch i ef Ran d y Fo n t en o t (co l l ect i vel y referred t o

h erei n aft er as “ defen dan t s ”), al l eg i n g fal s e arres t an d fal s e i m p ri so n m en t

. On M ay

9 , 20 1 6 , m o re t h an o n e y ear fo l l o wi ng t h e arres t , M r. E ag l i n am en d ed h i s p et i t i o n to

ad d M r. Po wel l as a p art y p l ai nt i ff.

In r e s p o n s e t o t h e am en d ed p et i t i o n , d efen d an t s fi l ed an ex cep t i o n o fp r e s c r i p t i o n , al l eg in g Mr. Po wel l ’ s cl ai m s fo r fal s e arres t an d fal s e i m p ri s o n m e n t

were p res cri b ed

. Defen d an t s arg u ed M r. Po wel l ’ s cl ai m s p res cri b ed o n M ay 4 , 2 0 1 6,

o n e y ear aft er t h e d at e o f h i s M ay 4 , 2 0 1 5 arres t

.
M r. Po wel l o p p os ed t h e ex cep t i o n

. H e arg u ed t h e am en ded p et i t i o n ad d i n g h i s

cl ai m rel at ed back t o Mr. Ea g l i n ’s t i m el y -fi l ed p et i t i o n

. In ad d i t io n , M r. Po wel l

arg u ed h i s cl ai m fo r fal s e i m p r i s o n m e n t d id n o t co m

m en ce u n t i l t h e d at e h e was

rel eas ed fro m p ri s o n (Au g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 1 5), t h ereb y m ak i n g h i s M ay 9 , 2 0 16 cl ai m

t i m el y

.
Aft er a h eari n g , t h e d is t ri ct co urt g ran ted d efen d an t s ’ ex cep t i o n o f p res cri p t i o n

an d di s m i s s ed Mr. Po w el l ’ s cl ai m s wi t h p reju di ce. Th e d i st ri ct co u rt i n i t i al l y reject ed

M r. Po we ll ’ s rel at i o n b ack arg u m en t , fi n d i n g t h ere was n o l eg al o r fam il y rel at i o n s h ip

wh i ch wo u l d al l o w t h e am en d ed p et i t i o n ad d i n g M r. Po wel l ’ s cl ai m t o rel at e b ack to

M r. Eag l i n ’ s o ri g in al cl ai m

. Th e co u rt fu rt her reas o n ed t h at p r e s c r i p t i o n o n M r.

Po wel l ’ s fal s e im

p ri s o nm en t cl ai m co m

m en ced to ru n o n t h e d at e o f h is arres t , rat h er

t h an h i s rel eas e fro m cu s t o d y

. Th erefo re, t h e co u rt d et erm i n ed t h e cl ai m was

p res cri bed

.
M r. Po w el l ap p eal ed , an d t h e co u rt o f ap peal rev ers ed

. Ea g l i n v. Eu n i ce Po l i ce
Dep ar t men t , 17 -1 2 7 (La. Ap p

. 3 r d Ci r. 1 0 / 4 / 1 7 ), 22 8 So .3 d 2 8 0

. Th e co u rt o f ap p eal

fo u n d t h at Mr. Po wel l ’ s cau s e of act i o n fo r fal s e i m p ri s o n m en t b eg an t o accru e o n t h e

d at e o f h i s rel eas e fro m p ri s o n

. Becau s e of t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n, t h e co u rt o f ap p eal

p ret erm i t t ed d i s cu s s i on o f M r. Po wel l ’ s rel at i o n b ack arg u m en t s

. Up o n defen d an t s ’ ap p l icat i o n , we g ran t ed cert i o rari t o co n si der t h e co rrect n es s

o f t h i s deci s i o n

. Ea g li n v. Eu n i ce Po l i ce Dep a r t men t , 1 7

- 1 8 7 5 ( L a

. 3 / 9 /1 8 ),

_ _ _ So .3 d

_

_ _ .
Two i ss ues are p res en t ed fo r o u r c o n s i derat i o n: (1 ) wh et h er p res cri p t i o n fo r

2fal s e arres t an d i m p ri s o nm en t c o m m en ces o n t he dat e of t h e arres t o r t h e d at e o f

rel eas e; an d (2 ) i f p res cri p t i o n ru n s fro m t h e d a t e o f arres t , wh et h er an am en d ed

p et i t i o n ad d in g a n ew pl ai n t iff rel at es b ack t o an o ri g i n al p et i t i o n fi l e d wi t h i n o n e

y ear o f t h e arres t

. W e wi ll ad dres s t h es e i s s u es i n t u rn

.

Pr es cr i p t i o n

Defen d an t s arg u e t h e s u it i s p res cri b ed b ecau se i t was cl earl y fi l ed m o re t h an

o n e y ear fro m M r. Po w el l ’ s arres t

. Ho wev er, M r. Po wel l t ak es t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t

p res cri pt i o n d id n ot co m

m en ce u n t i l h e was rel eas ed fro m cu s to dy , m ak in g h i s s u i t

t i m el y

.
W e l as t ad d res s ed t hi s i s s u e m o re t h an ei g h t y y ears ag o i n De Bo u ch el v. Ko ss

Co n s t

. C o ., In c. , 1 7 La. 8 4 1 , 1 4 9 So

. 4 96 (1 9 3 3 ). In De Bo uch el , t h e pl ai n t i ff was

arres t ed , i m

p ri s o n ed , ch arg ed wi t h d i s t u rb in g th e p eace, an d rel eas ed o n b o n d o n t h e

s am e d ay , J u n e 5 , 1 9 3 1

. Th e m at t e r p r o c e e d e d t o a tri al on Ju l y 7 , 1 9 3 1 , at wh i ch

t i m e t h e p l ai n ti ff was acq u i t t ed

. On J u ly 5 , 19 3 2 , t h e p l ai n t i ff fi l ed su i t ag ai n s t

d efen d an t , Ko s s Co n s t ru ct i o n Co m p an y ( “ K o s s ”), al l eg in g fal s e i m p ri s o n m en t an d

m al i ci ou s p ro s ecu t i o n as p art o f a c o n s p i racy t o s ei ze h i s m o t h er’ s l an d. Fo r t h e

p u rp os es o f p res cri p t i o n , t h is co u rt fo u n d t h e fal se i m pri s o n m en t an d m al i ci ou s

p ro s ecu ti o n cau s es o f act i o n “ aro se o n t h e sam e d ay , nam el y , J u n e 5 , 1 93 1 , wh i ch i s

t h e d ay o n wh i ch p l ai n t i ff was b o t h fal s el y i m p r i s o n e d a n d t h en rel eas ed fro m

p ri s o n .” (“ As res pect s t h e d em an d fo r d am ag es fo r fal s e i m p ri s on m en t , t h e d am ag e

an d t he cau s e o f act i o n t h erefo r aro s e o n t h e s am e d ay , n am el y , J u n e 5 , 1 93 1 , wh i ch

i s t h e d ay o n wh i ch p l ai n t i ff was b o t h fal s el y i m p ri s o ned an d t h en rel eas ed fro m

p ri s o n .”). D e Bo u ch el , 1 7 La. at 8 4 7 , 1 4 9 So . at 4 9 7

Becau s e th e pl ai n t i ff i n De Bo u ch el w as arres t ed , i m p ri s o n ed , an d rel eas ed in

3t h e co u rs e o f o n e d ay , i t p ro v i d es l i t t l e g u i d an ce i n t h e in s t an t cas e, wh ere o v er t h ree

m o nt h s el ap s ed bet ween Mr. Po wel l ’ s arres t an d rel eas e. Ho wev er, t h e i s su e h as b een

d i s cu s s ed i n d et ai l i n t h e ci rcu i t s

.
In Bu ven s v. Bu ven s , 28 6 So .2 d 1 4 4 (La. Ap p

. 3 r d Ci r. 19 7 3 ), t he p l ai n t i ff was

arres t ed o n M ay 6 , 1 9 6 3

. He was l at er tran s ferred t o a s t at e m en t al ho s pi t al

. He l eft

t h e h o sp i t al o n J u ly

1 3 , 1 96 3 o n a p as s an d d id n o t ret u rn

. On J u n e 2 4 , 1 9 6 4 , m o re

t h an o n e y ear aft er t h is arres t , p l ai n t i ff fi l ed a fal s e i m p ri s o n m en t s u it

. Th e t ri al co u rt

fo u n d p l ai nt i ff’ s s u i t was p res cri b ed

. Th e co u rt o f ap p eal affi rm ed o n ap p eal ,

ex p lai n i n g t he ev en t s w h i ch cau s ed p l ai n t i ff’ s d am ag e were h i s arres t an d t h e

co m m i t m en t t o t h e h o sp i t al fo r t reat m en t

. Al t h o u gh t he co u rt ack n o w l ed g ed t h at

p l ai n t i ff was co m

m i t t ed d u ri n g t h i s t i m e, it fo u n d h e “ was aware o f t h e s e fact s an d

was n ev er p rev en ted fro m b ri n g i n g s u i t.” Id

. at 1 47

.
I n a s u b seq u en t cas e, Mu r r a y v. To wn o

f M a n s u r a , 0 6 -0 3 5 5 (La. Ap p

. 3 Ci r

.
9 / 2 7 / 0 6 ), 9 4 0 So .2 d 8 32 , wr i t d en i ed , 0 6 -2 9 4 9 (La. 2 / 1 6 / 0 7 ), 94 9 So .2 d 4 1 9, t h e co u rt

reach ed a d i f

f e r e n t res u l t

. In Mu r ra

y , t h e p o l i ce ch i ef o f t h e To wn o f Man s u ra

arres t ed t h e p l ai n ti ffs o n M arch 2 1 , 1 9 9 9 , an d ch arg ed th em w i t h d i s t u rb i n g t h e p eace

an d fl i g h t fro m an o ffi cer. Th e To w n rel eas ed t h e p l ai n t i ffs fro m i m p ri s o n m en t o n

M arch 2 2 , 1 9 9 9, an d t h e ad h o c m ag i s trat e l at er d is m i ss ed t h e ch arg es o n Sep t em b er

2 7 , 1 9 9 9

. On Sep t em

b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 , t h e p l ai n t i ffs fi l ed s ui t ag ai n s t t h e To wn

. In a

s u p p lem en t al p et it i on fi l ed o n J u l y 1 1 , 2 00 2 , t h e p lai n t i ffs ad d ed fal s e arres t an d

i m p ri s o n m en t cl ai m s

. Th e To wn fi l ed an ex cep t i o n o f p res cri p t i o n , w h i ch t h e t ri al

co u rt g ran t ed

. Th e co u rt o f ap p eal affi rm ed

. Ci t in g o u r o pi n i o n i n D e Bo u ch el , t h e

co u rt o f ap p eal reas o ned t h at p res cri p t i o n co m m en ced o n M arch 2 2 , 1 9 9 9 , t h e d ay t h e

i m p ri s o n m en t t erm i n at ed , an d t h e cas e was th erefo re p res cri b ed b y t h e t i m e t h e J u l y

1 1 , 2 0 0 2 fal s e arres t an d i m pri s o n m en t cl ai m s w ere fi l ed

. Ho wev er, Mu rr a y d o es n ot

4s q u a r e l y res o l v e th e i s s u e pres en t ed h ere, b ecau s e t h e J u l y 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 s u i t was al s o

fi led m o re t h an o n e y ear fro m t h e p l ai n t i ffs ’ M arch 2 1 , 1 99 9 arres t

.
Th e i s s u e was al so ad d res s ed i n Ja cks o n v. Jef f er so n Pa r i s h Cl er k o

f Co u r t , 0 7

-

0 9 6 3 (La. Ap p

. 5 Ci r. 5 / 1 2 / 08 ), 9 8 1 So .2 d 1 5 6 , wr i t d en i ed , 0 8-1 1 5 0 (La. 1 0 / 3 1 / 0 8 ),

9 9 3 So .2 d 2 19

. In t h at cas e, t h e p l ai n t iff was arres t ed an d ch arg ed wi t h p o s s es s i o n

o f s t o l en t h i n g s , an d l at er rel eas ed o n b o n d i n M ay 20 0 0

. On Decem b er 5, 20 0 0 , t h e

p l ai n t i ff ap p eared b efo re t h e d i st ri ct co u rt an d as ked fo r a co n t i n u an ce, wh i ch t h e t ri al

co u rt g ran ted

. On t h i s d at e, t h e m i n u t e cl erk erro n eo u s l y fi l ed a m i n u t e en t ry i n to

p l ai n t i ff’ s reco r d i n d i c t i n g h e h ad p l ed g u i l t y

. On Feb ru ary 1 4, 2 0 0 1 , t he p l ai n t i ff

was n ot i fi ed t h at h i s paro l e was b ei n g rev o k ed d u e t o th e n ew co nv i ct i o n , an d h e was

i n carcerat ed fo r paro l e v i o l at io n u n t i l M ay 2 6 , 2 0 05 , res u lt i ng i n fo u r y ears o f

i n carcerat i on . On M ay

1 6 , 2 0 06 , t he p l ai n t iff fi led s u i t ag ai n s t t he J effers o n Pari s h

Cl erk o f Co u rt an d o t h ers , al l eg i n g h e was fal s el y i m p ri s o n ed f

o r f o u r ye ars as a

res u l t o f th e erro n eo u s m in ut e en t ry

. Defen d an t s fi l ed an ex cep t i o n o f p res cri p t i o n,

wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt gran t ed

. T h e co u rt o f ap p eal affi rm ed

. In an o p in i o n au t h o red

b y J ud g e (l at er J u s t i ce) G u i dry , t h e co u rt o f ap p eal affi rm ed , fi n d i n g t h e d o ct ri n e o f

co n tra n o n val e n t e m d i d n o t i n t erru p t t h e o n e-y ear p res cri p t iv e p eri od fo r fal s e

i m p ri s o n m en t on t h e gro u n d t h e p l ai n ti ff h ad k no wl ed g e t h at h e was i ncarcerat ed in

erro r s ev eral y ears pri o r t o fi l i n g s ui t :

In t h i s cas e, t he Pl ai n t i ff's paro l e w as rev o ked i n 2 0 0 1

. T he l et t er i nfo rm i n g h i m o f t h e rev ocat i o n s t at ed i t was b ecau s e
o f h is co n v ict io n , al t h o u g h h e k n ew t h e cas e w a s s t i l l p en d i n g , an d an erro r h ad b een co m m it t e d

. He t o o k n o i n v es t ig at i v e act i o n o r co n t act ed h i s at t o rn ey

. I n 2 0 0 4 , wh i l e i m p ri s o ned , h e fi l ed a m o t i o n t o co rrect an i l l eg al

s en t en ce, b ecau s e o f t h e erro r, b u t ag ai n , h e fai l ed t o tak e fu rt h er act i on wh en t h e m o t i o n was d en i ed

.
The tri a l judg e fo und, a nd w e a gree, tha t the m ere fa ct tha t the Pl a i nti ff w a s i n pri s o n is no t a n ex cus e fo r fa i l i ng to fi l e s ui t ti m el y

. S ee, McCo y v. Ci ty of Mo n ro e ,

53 2,5 2 1 (La.Ap p. 2 Ci r. 12 / 8 /9 9 ), 7 4 7 So .2 d 1 2 3 4 ; Ll o yd v. Ho wa r d , 56 6 So .2 d 4 2 4 , (La.Ap p

. 3 Ci r.1 9 9 0 ); an d Co rs ey
v. S t a t e, Th r ou g h Dep t. o f Co rr ect i on s , 3 7 5 So .2 d 1 3 1 9 (La.1 9 7 9 ). In McCo

y, a p ri s o ner s o u g h t d am ag es fro m th e d is t ri ct at t o rn ey 's o ffi ce fo r o b t ai n i n g a co n v i ct i o n ag ai n s t h im u n d e r an u n l awfu l i n di ct m en t

. Th e co n t ra n o n
v al en t em d oct ri n e was fo u n d no t a p p l i cab l e t o to l l p res cri p t i o n

. Li k ewi s e, i n Ll o yd

. Th ere, th e co u rt d ecl i n ed t o ap p l y t h e d o ct ri n e al t h o ug h t h e i n ju red p ri so n er cl ai m ed

s h e was u n ab l e to fi l e s u it b ecau s e o f v ei l ed t hreat s b y th e Sh eri ff. In Co r

sey v. S t a t e, Th r o u g h Dep t

. of Co r r ect i o ns , 3 75 So .2 d 1 3 1 9 ( L a.1 9 7 9 ), t h e co u rt fo un d p res cri p t i o n t o l l ed b y t h e d o ct ri n e o f co n t ra n o n val en t em

. Ho w ev er, i t d id s o b ecau s e t h e p ri s o n er was i n ju red so b ad l y b y th e d efen d an t t h a t h e h ad b een i n cap ab l e o f u n d ers t an d i n g wh at h ad h ap p en ed t o h i m an d was n o t aware o f hi s l eg al

rem ed i es . [em

p h as i s ad d ed ]

.
Al t h o u g h J

a cks o n d o es n o t ci t e t h e earl i er ap p el l at e o p in i o n in Bu ven s , i t

es p o us es s i m i l ar reas o ni n g

. Es s en t i al l y , Ja cks o n reas o ns t h e p l ai nt iff k n ew h e was

i n ju red o n th e d ay h i s p aro l e was rev o k ed , an d p res cri p t i o n o n t h e fal s e arres t cl ai m

co m m en ced o n t h at d ay

. Al t h o u g h t h e p lai n t i ff m ay h av e b een i n carcerat ed wh i l e t h e

p res cri pt i v e p eri o d was ru n ni n g , t h e Ja cks o n co u rt fo u n d t h e p l ai n t i ff d i d n o t m ak e

an y s h o wi n g t h at h e was p rev en t ed fro m fi l i ng s u i t s i m

p l y d u e t o h i s i n carcerat i o n

.
Th e h o l di n g s o f Ja cks o n a n d B u v en s are co n s i s t en t wi t h t h e wel l -s et t l ed

co n cep t t h at p res cri pt i o n co m m en ces t o ru n fro m t h e d ay i n ju ry o r d am a g e i s

s u s t ai n ed

. La. Ci v

. Co d e art

. 3 4 9 2 ; Br a u d v. New En g la n d In s

. Co

. , 57 6 So .2 d 4 6 6
(La. 1 9 9 1 ). In t h e i n s t an t cas e, i t i s u n d i s pu t ed t h at M r. Po wel l’ s i nju ry o r d am ag es

b as ed o n t h e al l eg ed fal s e arres t an d fal s e i m p ri s o n m en t was fi rs t s u st ai ned o n M ay

4 , 2 0 15 , t h e d at e h e was arres t ed

. Th erefo re, p res cri p t i o n co m m en ced th at d a y.

In arg u i n g pre s c r ip t i o n co m m en ces fro m t h e d at e o f rel eas e, rat h er t h an t h e

d at e o f arres t , Mr. Po wel l urg es u s t o co n s i d er W a l l a ce v. Ka t o , 54 9 U.S. 3 8 4 (2 0 0 7 ).

In W a l la ce , t h e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u rt , ap p l y in g g e n e r a l co m m o n l aw

p ri n ci p l es t o an Il l i n o i s cas e, h el d t h at s t at u t e o f l im i t at i o ns i n a fal s e i m p ri s o n m en t

6cas e b ei n g t o ru n wh en th e fal s e i m p ri so n m en t e n d s

. T h e C o u rt ci t ed a t reat i s e

ex p lai n i n g t hat t h i s ru l e i s “ d i ct at ed , perh ap s , b y t he real i ty t hat t h e v ict i m m ay n ot

b e ab l e to s u e w h il e h e i s s t i l l i m p ri s o n ed

. . . . ” 5 4 9 U. S

. at

_ _ _ (ci t i n g 2 H

. W o o d,

Li m i t at i o n o f Act i o n s § 1 8 7 d (4 ), p . 8 7 8 (4 t h rev

. ed . 1 91 6 )).

W e h av e l o n g reco g n i zed s i g n if i can t di fferen ces ex i s t b et ween co m m o n l aw

s t at u tes o f li m i t at io ns an d t he ci v i l l aw co n cep t of p res cri p t i o n

. S ee, e.g ., Lo u i s i a n a

He a l t h S er vi ce a nd In d

em. Co

. v. McNa ma r a , 5 61 So .2 d 7 12 , 7 1 8 (La. 1 9 9 0 )
(ex p l ai n i n g t hat “ [u ] n l ik e s t a t u t es o f l i m i t at i o n s at co m m o n l aw, wh i ch are m erel y

p ro ced ural b ars t o t h e en fo rcem en t o f o b l i g at io n s , ci v i l i an pres cri p ti v e p eri o d s act to

ex t i n g u i s h t h e ci v i l [i

. e., l eg al ] o b l i g at i o n t o wh ich t h ey ap p l y .”). Th es e fu n d am en t al

d i s t i n ct i o n s b et ween t h e t wo co n cep t s s u gg es t t h at co m m o n l aw d o ct ri n e i s n ot

p ers u as i v e au t h o ri t y

fo r i n t erp ret i n g p res cri p t i v e p eri o d s u n d er t h e ci v i l l aw.

M o reo v er, we bel i ev e t h e co n cern s i d en t i fi ed at co m m o n l aw fo r d el ay i n g t h e

co m m en cem en t o f t h e st at u t es o f l i m i t at io n s in fal s e i m p r i s o n m en t cas es are n ot

ap p li cab l e u n d e r Lo u i s ian a l aw. In p art i cu l ar, t h e co m m o n l aw t reat i s e wri t ers

s u g g es t th e s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i o n s i n fal s e i m p ri s on m en t cas es s h ou l d b e d el ay ed u n d er

t h e p ers o n ’ s rel eas e b ecau s e t h e p ers o n m i g h t n o t b e ab l e t o fi l e s u i t w h i l e

i n carcerat ed

. Ho wev er, in o u r ci v i l l aw t r a d i t i o n , s u ch co n cern s are ad d res s ed

t h r o u g h t h e an ci en t ci v i l i an d o ct ri n e o f co n t r a no n va l en t em a g er e n u l l a cu r r i t

p r a es cr i p t i o , wh i ch p ro vi d es t h at u n d er cert ai n s p eci fi c co n d i ti o n s , p res cri p t i o n m ay

b e s u sp en d ed wh en a p l ai n ti ff i s u n ab l e t o ex erci s e hi s cau s e o f act i o n wh e n i t

accru es

. S

ee Co r s ey v. S t a t e Dep t

. o

f Co r r ect i o n s , 3 7 5 So

. 2 d 13 1 9 (La.1 9 7 9 ). Th i s

eq u it ab l e d o ct ri n e s erv es t o am el i o rat e t h e h ars h n es s wh i ch wo u l d res u l t fro m t h e

s t ri ct ap p l i cat i on o f p res cri p t i on i n cert ai n s i t u at i o ns

. St a t e Th r o u g h Di v. o f Ad mi n,

v. Mcl nn i s Br o s . Co n s t ., 9 7 -0 7 4 2 , p . 3 (La. 1 0 / 2 1 / 9 7 ), 7 0 1 So .2 d 9 37 , 9 40

.

7No n et h el es s , u n d er t h e fact s o f t h e cas e at b ar, we s ee n o b as i s fo r ap p l i cat i o n

o f t h e d o ct ri n e o f co n t r a n on va l en t em

. M r. Po wel l has n o t as s e r t e d t h a t h e was

p rev en ted fro m fi l i n g s u i t d u e t o h is i n carcerat i o n

. M o r e o v e r, al t h o u g h M r. Po wel l

was i n carcerat ed fo r ap p ro x i m at el y t h ree m o nt h s aft er hi s M ay 4 , 2 0 1 5 arres t , n earl y

ei g h t m o n t h s rem ai n ed i n t h e p res cri p t i v e p eri o d at th e t i m e h e was rel eas ed o n

Au g u s t 21 , 2 0 15

. In d eed , M r. Eag l i n , wh o was i n carcerat ed fo r t h e s am e am o u n t o f

t i m e as M r. Po wel l , was ab l e to fi l e h i s s u i t ti m e l y o n A p r i l 2 9 , 2 0 1 6

. M r. Po wel l

p res en t s n o ex p lan at i on as t o h e wai t ed u n ti l M ay 9, 2 0 1 6, m o re th an on e ye a r

fo l l o w i n g t h e ar r e s t , t o p res en t h i s cl ai m

. Th u s , wh i l e t h e d o ct ri n e o f co n t r a n o n

va l en t em m i g h t b e ap p l i cab l e t o fal s e arres t an d i m p ri s o nm en t cl ai m s u n d er an

ap p ro p ri at e s et o f fact s , we fi n d n o b as i s t o ap p l y t h e d o ct ri n e h ere.

In s u m m ary , we co n cl u d e pres cri pt io n o n M r. Po w el l ’ s fal s e arres t an d fal s e

i m p ri s o n m en t cl ai m s co m

m en ced o n M ay 4 , 2 0 15 , t h e d at e o f h i s arres t

. Hi s M ay 9,

2 0 1 6 cl ai m w a s f

i l ed ou t s i d e o f t h e o n e-y ear p res cri p ti ve p eri o d an d i s t h erefo re

u n t i m el y

.

Rel a t io n Ba ck

M r. Po wel l n ex t arg u es t h at ev en i f h i s cl ai m was fi led o u ts i d e o f t h e o n e-y ear

p res cri pt i v e peri o d , i t s h o ul d s t i l l b e co n s i d ered t i m el y b ecau s e t h e am en d ed p et i t i o n

ad d in g t hi s cl ai m rel at ed b ack t o M r. Eag l i n’ s o ri g i n al p et i ti o n

. It i s un d i s p u t ed t h at

M r. Eag li n ’ s Ap ri l 2 9 , 20 1 6 s ui t was fi l ed wi t h i n o n e y ear of t h e M ay 4 , 2 0 1 5 arres t

.
Th erefo re, i f t h e a m e n d e d p et i t i o n ad d i n g M r. Po wel l rel at es b ack to M r. Eag l i n ’ s

o ri g i nal p et i t i o n , M r. Po w el l ’ s cl ai m s wi l l b e t i m el y

.
In Gi r o i r v. So u t h L o u i s i a n a Med i ca l Cen ter , Di v. o f Ho s p i t a ls , 47 5 So .2 d

1 0 4 0 , 1 04 4 (La. 1 98 5 ), we ex p lai n ed an am en d m en t ad d i n g o r s u b s t i t u t i n g a p l ai n t i ff

8s h o u ld b e al l o wed to rel at e ba c k i f ( 1 ) t h e am en d ed cl ai m ari ses o u t o f t h e s am e

co n d u c t , t ran s act i o n , o r o ccu rren ce s et fo rt h i n t h e o ri gi n al p l ead i n g ; (2 ) t h e

d efen d an t ei t her k new o r s h o ul d h av e k n own o f t h e ex i s t en ce an d in v ol v em en t o f t h e

n ew pl ai n t i ff; (3 ) t h e n ew a n d t h e o l d p la i n t i f f s a r e s uf f i ci en t l y r el a t e d s o t h a t t h e

a d d ed o r s u b s t i t u t ed p ar t

y i s n o t wh o l l

y n ew o r u n r el a t ed ; (4 ) t h e d efen d an t wi l l n ot

b e p reju d i ced i n p rep ari ng an d co n d u ct i n g h i s d efen s e. [em p h as i s ad ded ]

.
Al t h ou g h al l o f t hes e fact o rs m u s t be s at i s fi ed in o rd er fo r a cl ai m t o re l at e

b ack , o ur i n q u iry

i n t h i s cas e fo cu s es o n t h e t h i rd fact or

– n am el y , wh et h er t h e n ew

an d o l d pl ai n t i ffs are s u ffi ci en tl y rel at ed so t h at t h e ad d ed or s u b s t i t u t ed p art y i s n ot

wh o l l y new o r un rel at ed

. In d i s cu s s i n g t h i s fact o r, we ex p l ai n ed t he o ri gi n al p l ai n t i ff

an d th e n ew p l ai n t i ffs m

u s t hav e “ cl o s e, fam il i al an d leg al rel at i o ns h ip s .” Gi r o i r , 4 7 5

So .2 d at 1 0 4 5

.
In t h e cas e b efo re u s , M r. Po wel l has n o t al l eg ed t h at h e h as an y cl o s e fam i l i al

o r l e g a l rel at i o n s h i p wi t h M r. Eag l i n

. 1 Mr. Po wel l ’ s cl ai m fo r d am ag es st em m i n g

fro m h i s fal s e arres t an d fal s e i m p ri s on m en t are n o t d eri v at iv e o f Mr. Eag l i n ’ s cl ai m s

n o r are t h ey rel at ed i n an y leg al s en s e. Rat h er, b o t h m en po s ses s w h o ll y s ep arat e an d

d i s t i n ct cau s es o f act i o n bas ed o n t h ei r own i n ju ri es res ul t i n g fro m t h e i r a l l e g ed l y

i m p ro p er arres t an d i m

pri s o n m en t

. Becau s e t h e cl ai m s are u n rel at ed fro m a l eg al

s t an d p o in t , t here i s n o b as i s u n d er wh i ch t h e am en d ed p et i t i o n ad d in g M r. Po wel l as

a p l ai n t i ff can rel at e b ack t o Mr. Eag l i n’ s o ri g i n al p et it i o n

.

DECREE

1 During the hearing

on the ex ception of p rescription, Mr. Powell’s c ounsel indicated that Mr. Eag lin and Mr. Powell were c o usins; however, no testimony or other evidence to this effect was introduced. I n any e v e n t, the jurisprudence has d eclined to broadly construe the term “close familial relationships” as used in G iroir

. See Boquet v. SW DI, LLC , 07-0738 (L a

. App. 1 s t Cir. 6 /6/08), 992 So.2d 1059 (finding the claim of a step-mother did not relate back); D elmore v. Hebert , 99-2061 (L a.App. 1 Cir. 9/22/00), 768 So.2d 251 (finding the claim of a niece did not relate back).

9Fo r t h e reas o n s as s i g n ed , t h e ju dg m en t of t h e co u rt o f ap p eal i s rev ers ed

. Th e

ju d g m en t o f t h e di s t ri ct co u rt g ran t i n g d efen d a n t s ’ ex cep t i on o f p res cri p t i o n an d

d i s m i s s i n g t he cl ai m s o f Pau l Po wel l wi t h p reju di ce i s rei n s t at ed

.

101 06/27/18

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2017

- C

- 1875

MARLON EAGLIN

VERSUS
EUNICE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ST. LANDRY

JOHNSON , Chief Justice , dissents and assigns reasons.

I respectfully dissent because I do not find Mr. Powell’s false arrest and false
imprisonment claims are prescribed. Rather, I find the court of appeal correctly

determined that prescription on such claims does not commence until the
imprisonment ends. Because Mr. Powell was not released until August 21, 2015, I
find his claims were timely filed on May 9, 2016.
Contrary to the majority, I find the holding and reasoning of W allace v. Kato
, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) applicable here. As explained by the Supreme Court in Wallace
, The running of the statute of limitations on false imprisonment is subject to a distinctive rule

— dictated, perhaps, by the reality that the victim may not b e able to sue while he is still imprisoned: Limitations begin to run against an action for false imprisonment when the al leged false imprisonment ends. 549 U.S. 384, 389 (citing 2 H. Wood, Limitation of Actions § 187d(4), p. 878 (rev.
4th ed.1916); 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 899, Comment c (1977); A.

Underhill, Principles of Law of Torts 202 (1881) )

. While acknowledging concerns
about a person’s ability to file suit while incarcerated, rather than follow the logical
rule of the Supreme Court in these cases, the majority instead holds that the doctrine

of contra non valentem should apply. In so doing, the majority puts the burden on2 the incarcerated person to show why he was unable to file suit timely and effectively
shortens the pres criptive period for this category of litigants. In my view, the
prescriptive period should be absolute , and we should not particularize prescription

limitations for those incarcerated

.
For these reasons, I would affirm.SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2017

- C

- 1875

MARLON EAGLIN

VERSUS
EUNICE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD

CIRCUIT, PRISH OF ST. LANDRY

Hughes, J., dissenting

. Respectfully, in m y opinion every day that a person is falsely imprisoned is
a harm to that person. I distinguish false arrest and malicious prosecution. I
realize that in today ’s world D umas and Voltaire are not as fashionable as once
they were, and the freedom of some m ay be considered worth more than that of
others, but every day taken is worth something until the false imprisonment is

ended. 06/27/18