FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 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 o. 07- 10595 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -001 86 -C V -D H B -1 A N A M . A B R E U - V E L E Z , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s BOARD O F R EGENTS OF THE U N I V E R S I T Y S Y S T E M O F G E O R G I A , M E D I C A L C O L L E G E O F G E O R G I A , D E N N I S M A R C U S , M .D ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es.As al l ege d i nth e c o mp l ai nt , Dr . M ar cu s , as h ea d o f th e D ep artm ento f O p hth al m o l o gy 1 of the Medic al Colleg e of G eorg ia, hired a ppellant in August 2004 as his resea rch a ssistant and study coordinator. She objecte d to the manner in which Dr. Ma

rcus planne d to conduct a c linical study on humans that involved radiation and invasive surg ery to be performed in a

n operating ro om. Shee xpre sse d h e r obje c tio n, whic h c on c e rne d whe ther M arcus ’spla n w a s sa fefo r t

ho se who would be e xposed to the radiation, in a November 19, 2004 email to Dr. Marcus and others who were to be involved in the c linical study . After rec eivingthe email, Dr . Marcus terminated appellant’ s employ

ment eff ective N ovember

22, 2004. 2 P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a nti s a phy s i c i a n. I n he rc om pl a i nti n thi s c a s e a ga i ns tthe B oa r d of R e ge nt s of

the U ni ve r s i ty S y s t e m of G e or gi a , the M e di c a l C ol l e ge of G e or gi a , a nd D r. D enni s M ar cus ( col l ec t i vel y “ the B oard”), she a l l eged thatthe B oard pres sure d h e rin to q u ittin g h e rjo b in r e ta lia tio n f o rh e re x e r c is e o f

F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts and see ks re l i ef

un der 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3. S he al so cl ai m ed thatthe B oard vi ol at ed 1 he rr i ght s unde rthe G e or gi a W hi s t l e bl ow e rA c t , O . C . G . A . § 45- 1- 4. A f t e rthe B oard answ er ed the com pl ai ntand d i sc ov ery c om m ence d, appel l ant ’ s a tt orney m o v e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to w ith d r a w , a n d th e c o u r t g r a n te d th e m o tio n . I n its or de r , the c our tdi r e c t e d appe l l a ntt o not i f y the c our tw i thi n f

i ve da y s w he the rs he w is h e d to p r o c e e d p r o s e o rn e e d e d a n e x te n s io n o f tim e to h ir e s u b s titu te c o u n s e l. A pp el l antfa i l ed t o res po nd t o the court ’ s order , so on Ja nu ary 29, 20 07 , the court d is m is s e d h e rc a s e w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e f o rf a ilu r e to p r o s e c u te . A p p e lla n t, proceedi ng pro se, no w appeal s. T he qu es t i on before us i s w hether the di stri ct c our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n di s m i s s i ng appe l l a nt ’ s c a s e . G of or th v. O w e ns , 7663

F .2 d 1 5 3 3 , 1 5 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . T he l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f orc l a i m s br oughtunde r42 U . S . C . § 1983 i s the pe r s ona l i nj ury l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od of the f orum s t a t e . R oz a rv. M ul l i s , 85 F . 3d 556, 5 6 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) . P e r s o n a l i n j u ry c l a i m s i n Ge o r g i a m u s tb e f i l e d “ wi th i n two y e a r s a f t e rthe r i ghtof

a c t i on a c c rue s . ” I d. a t560- 61; O . C . G . A . § 9- 3- 33. “ T he ge ne r a l f e de r a l rul e i s tha tthe s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons doe s notbe gi n t o run unt 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 appa r e ntors houl d be appa r e ntt o a pe r s on w i th a r e a s onabl y prude ntr e ga r d f orhi s r i ght s . ” R oz a r , 85 F . 3d a t561- 62 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). H er e, appel l ant ’ s a l l eged i nj ury r es ul t ed fr om her t e r m i na t i on, w hi c h oc c urr e d on N ove m be r22, 2004. T hus , a s s um i ng tha tno t ol l i ng occurre d, the l i m i t at i on s per i od for app el l ant ’ s § 19 83 cl ai m expi re d e f f e c tiv e N o v e m b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 6 . W here a di sm i ss al “ has the ef fe ctof prec l ud i ng [pl ai nt i ff ] fr om re fi l i ng [her ] case d u e t o th e ru n n i n g o f th e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s. . . . [t ] h e d i sm i ssal [i s] t a nt a m ountt o a di s m i s s a l w i th pr e j udi c e . ” J us t i c e v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 6 F . 3d 1474, 14 82 n. 15 (11th C i r. 19 93 ); se e a l so B urden v . Y at es , 64 4 F . 2d 50 3, 50 5 (5th C i r. U ni tB M ay 19 81 ) ( “ w here . . . . the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s pre vent s or a rguabl y m ay pr e ve nta pa r ty f

r om r e f i l i ng hi s c a s e a f

t e ri tha s be e n di s m i s s e d, w e f a i l t o s e e how a d is m is s a l w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e is a n y le s s s e v e r e a s a n c tio n th a n a d is m is s a l w ith4

p r e ju d ic e .” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “[ W ]h e r e th e d is m is s a l is w i tho utprej ud i ce , bu tthe appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s probabl y bar s f urther l i t i ga t i on, the s t a nda r d of r e vi e w of

the D i s tr i c tC our t ' s di s m i s s a l s houl d be the s a m e a s i s us e d w he n r e vi e w i ng a di s m i s s a l w i th pr e j udi c e . ” B oa z m a n v. E c o n o m ic s L ab o r a to ry , I n c ., 5 3 7 F .2 d 2 1 0 , 2 1 3 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 6 ) .

“ D i s mi s s a l w i th p r e

j u d i c e , w h e th e ro n mo t i o n o rs u a s p o n t e , i s a n e x tr e me sa nct i on thatm ay be prop er l y i m po se d o nl y w hen: ‘ (1) aparty e ng ages i n a cl ea r patt ern o f del ay or w i l l ful cont em pt(c on tum ac i ou s c on du ct ); and (2) the di stri ct co u rtsp eci fi cal l y fi n d s th atl esser san ct i o n s w o u l d n o tsu ffi ce. ’ ” B etty K A genci es , L T D v. M /V M on ada, 43 2 F . 3d 13 33 , 13 38 (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). A di s m i s s a l w i th pr e

j udi c e i s a " dr a s t i c r e m e dy t o be us e d onl y i n thos e s i tua t i ons w h e r e a le s s e rs a n c tio n w o u ld n o t b e tte rs e r v e th e in te r e s ts o f ju s tic e ." J u s tic e , 6 F .3 d a t 1 4 8 2 n .1 5 ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . D i sm i ss al w i th p re

j ud i ce i s “ i m prop erun l es s a nd un t i l the di stri ctcourt fi nd s acl ea r r ec ord o f del ay or w i l l ful m i sc on du ctand thatl es se r s anct i on s a re in a d e q u a te to c o rr e c t s u c h c o n d u c t.” B e tty K . A g e n c ie s , 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 9 . M oreover, “ fi nd i ng s s at i sf yi ng bo th p rong s of [ the] st andard are es se nt i al before d i sm i ssal w i th p rej u d i ce i s ap p ro p ri at e, ” an d d i stri ctco u rt s m u stm ak e th ese f i ndi ngs “ be c a us e the s a nc t i on of di s m i s s a l w i th pr e

j udi c e i s s o uns pa r i ng . . . . a nd5

w e s tr iv e to a f

f o r d a litig a n t h is o rh e rd a y in c o u r t, if p o s s ib le .” I d . A di stri ctcourt ’ s c on si dera t i on of l es se r s anct i on s “ need no tbe expl i ci t . ” G r a tto n v . G r e a t A m . C o m m u n ic a tio n s ., 1 7 8 F .3 d 1 3 7 3 , 1 3 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . N everthel es s, w hi l e thi s c ou rthas “ occa si on al l y i nferre d such a fi nd i ng , as w here l es se r s anct i on s w ou l d h ave ‘ grea t l y pre j ud i ce d’ defe nd ant s, i thas ‘ never su g g est ed th atth e d i stri ctco u rtn eed n o tm ak e th atfi n d i n g . . . . ’ ” K i l g o v . R i ck s, 983 F . 2d 189, 193 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . “ M e r e de l a y w i l l nots uf f i c e ; ‘ [ a ] f i ndi ng of such extre m e c i rc um st ance s nec es sa ry t o sup po rtthe sa nct i on of di sm i ss al m ust , at a m i ni m um , be ba s e d on e vi de nc e of w i l l f ul de l a y ; s i m pl e ne gl i ge nc e doe s not w a rr a n t d is m is s a l.’” ) . K ilg o , 9 8 3 F .2 d a t 1 9 2 - 3 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o m a ke f

i ndi ngs s uf

f i c i e ntt o e nabl e us t o ass es s w hether i tabused i t s di sc re t i on . O n i t s f ac e, the court ’ s orderst at ed that the di sm i ss al w as w i tho utprej ud i ce . A ss um i ng , ho w ever , thatthe tw o-ye ar l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od ha s e xpi r e d, the di s m i s s a l w a s e f f e c t i ve l y w i th pr e

j udi c e . T he co u rt d id n o t m ak e a fin d in g th at ap p ellan t’ s f ailu re to co m p ly w ith it s o rd erw as “a cl ea r patt ern o f del ay or w i l l ful cont em pt . ” S ee B etty K A genci es , 43 2 F . 3d at 13 38 (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). N or di d the di stri ctcourtexpl i ci t l y c on si der w hether al es se r s anct i on w ou l d p re j ud i ce the defendant s. S ee K i l go , 98 3 F . 2d at 19 3. W e there fore vaca t e the court ’ s dec i si on and rem and the ca se for f urtherIn her brief, a ppellant raises issues not presente d to the district court. Hence, w e do not 2 c on side r t hem. 6 pr oc e e di ngs noti nc ons i s t e nthe r e w i th. 2 V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.