FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 23, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 06- 10761 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -012 46 -C V -J E C -1 J O H N W A L K E R , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , W A R D E N W I L L I E S C O T T , P H Y S I C I A N J O H N D O E , C O U N S E L O R M A S T E R S , U N I T M A N A G E R S T O N E , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , F E D E R A L B U R E A U O F P R I S O N S , D e f e n d a n t.

________________________ 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 N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 23, 2006)2

B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J ohn W a l ke r , af

e de r a l pr i s one r , appe a l s the di s m i s s a l of hi s c i vi l c om pl a i nt u n d e rth e F e d e r a l T o rt C la im s A c t ( “F T C A ” ) , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 4 , a n dB iv e n s v . S ix U nknow n A ge nt s & F e de r a l B ur e au of N a r c ot i c s , 403 U . S . 388, 91 S . C t . 1999, 29 L. Ed . 2 d 6 1 9 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , a n d th e d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n s f

o rl e a v e t o p r o c e e di n f

o rma p au p e r is ( “I F P ” ) a n d f

o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. W a l ke rr a i s e s f

ouri s s ue s on appe a l . F i r s t , W a l ke rc ha l l e nge s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d is m is s in g h is c o m p la in t w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e . H e a r g u e s th a t a

“ bl i nd and p auperi ze d p ri soner” coul d n otob t ai n the address es of the nam ed de f e nda nt s ora rr a nge f

ors e rvi c e of

pr oc e s s f

r om pr i s on. W a l ke rc ont e nds tha the

“ m ade am i gh ty e ff

ort ” t o arr ange se rvi ce . S ec on d, W al ker argues thatthe di stri ct c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. W a l ke ra c know l e dge s tha the ha s no r i ghtt o c ouns e l , butc ont e nds tha tthe e x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s p r e s e n t h e r e o f th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ c o n d u c t c au s in g h im to go bl i nd a nd pr e ve nt i ng hi m f r om r e pr e s e nt i ng hi m s e l f w a rr a nt s appoi ntm e ntof c ouns e l . T hi r d, W a l ke ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of I F P s t a tus a nd ap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l c o n s titu te dad e n ia l o f m e a n in g f

u l a c c e s s to th e c o u rts . W a l ke ra r gue s tha tabl i nd pr o s e l i t i ga ntc a nnote f f e c t i ve l ypur s ue al e ga l a c t i on.3

F in a lly , W a lk e ra r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e din d e n y in g I F P s ta tu s . W a l ke rde s c r i be s hi m s e l f a s a“ paupe r ” a nd not e s tha tw e gr a nt e d hi m I F P s t a tus o n ap p e a l e v e n th o u g h h is a s s e ts r e m a in e dth e s a m e . H o w e v e r , w e n e e d n o t c o n s id e rth e s e is s u e s o n ap p e a l b e c au s e W a lk e r ’s s u it is b a rr e d b yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . W e r e vi e w de novo que s t i ons c onc e rni ng the appl i c a t i on of as t a tut e of lim ita tio n s . H a rr is o n v . D ig ita l H e a lth P la n , 1 8 3 F .3 d1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . I n the c ont e xtof

a n I F P f r i vol i tyde t e rm i na t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1915, “ [ t ] he e xpi r a t i on of

the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons i s a n a f

f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e the e xi s t e nc e of w hi c h w a rr a nt s adi s m i s s a l a s f r i vol ous . ” C l a rk v. S t a t e of G e or gi aP a r dons a nd P a r ol e s B d. , 915 F . 2d 636, 640 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . W e ha ve f urthe re xpl a i ne d,

“ [t ] o d i sm i ss a pri soner' s c om pl ai ntas t i m e- barr ed pri or t o servi ce , i tm ust‘ appear be y ond adoubtf

r om the c om pl a i nti t s e l f tha t[ the pr i s one r ] c a n pr ove no s e tof f a c t s w hi c h w oul d a voi d as t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons ba r . ’ ” H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F . 3d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . F e de r a l of

f i c i a l s m a ybe s ue d i n the i ri ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s f orvi ol a t i ons of a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . B i ve ns , 403 U . S . a t397, 91 S . C t . a t2005. T he s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons appl i c abl e t o 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i ons appl i e s t o B i ve ns c l a i ms . K e l l yv . Se rn a , 8 7 F. 3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) . Se c t i o n 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms4

a r e g o v e rn e d b yth e f

o ru m s ta te 's r e s id u a l p e r s o n a l in ju rys ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . C i tyof H i a l e a h, F l a . v. R oj a s , 311 F . 3d 1096, 1103 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . T he G e or gi atw o- y e a rpe r s ona l i nj uryl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od appl i e s t o § 1983 a c t i ons i n a G eorgi a di stri ctcourt . M ul l i nax v . M cE l henn ey , 81 7 F . 2d 71 1, 71 5-16 (11th C i r. 1 9 8 7 ) . A c au s e o f

a c tio n a c c ru e s f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s in § 1 98 3 and B i vens ca se s w hen the pl ai nt i ff kn ow s or has re as on t o k no w of an i nj urya nd w ho ha s i nf

l i c t e d i t . K e l l y , 87 F . 3d a t1238- 39. T he F T C A i s ac ongr e s s i ona l w a i ve rof s ove r e i gn i m m uni tytha ta l l ow s the g o v e rn m e n t to b e s u e d u n d e rc e rta in c ir c u m s ta n c e s f o rp a rtic u la rto rtio u s a c ts com m i tt ed by em pl oyee s of the go vernm ent . 28 U . S . C . § 2 67 4. “ T he F eder al T ort C la im s A c t ( F T C A ) p r o v id e s th a t a n ‘a c tio n s h a ll n o t b e in s titu te du p o n ac la im ag ai n stth e U n i t ed S t at es fo r m o n ey d am ag es' u n l ess th e cl ai m an th as fi rst e xhaus t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s . ” M c N e i l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 508 U . S . 106, 10 7, 11 3 S . C t . 19 80 , 19 81 , 12 4 L . E d. 2d 21 (199 3). T he F T C A i m po se s atw o-ye ar s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons w i thi n w hi c h t ortc l a i m s a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s m us tbe “p r e s e n te d in w r itin g to th e ap p r o p r ia te F e d e r a l a g e n c y .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 0 1 ( b ) . A c l a i m unde rthe F T C A a c c rue s w he n the pl a i nt i f f ha s know l e dge of

a n i nj urya nd i t s c aus e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K ubr i c k, 444 U . S . 111, 123, 100 S . C t . 352, 360, 62 L . E d. 2d 25 9 (19 79 ).5

Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n du p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we fi nd no re vers i bl e e rr or as t o thi s i ss ue. I n h is a r g u m e n t o n ap p e a l c h a lle n g in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f h is c om pl a i nt , W a l ke rdoe s notc ha l l e nge the c ourt ’ s f i ndi ng tha thi s c l a i m s - unde rthe F T C A o rB iv e n s - w e r e b a rr e d b yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , n o rd o e s h e s ta te a n y th in g th a t c o u ldb e lib e r a llyc o n s tru e da s ac h a lle n g e to th e c o u rt’s f in d in g . W e w i l l no tconsi der i ss ues thatar e notra i se d i n an i ni t i al bri ef . S ee A cc es s N ow , Inc. v . S o u th we s tAi r l i n e s C o . , 3 8 5 F . 3 d1 3 2 4 , 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . Wh i l e we l i b eral l y co n stru e p ro se p l ead i n g s, w e w i l l n o tactas d e fact o co u n sel fo r p ro se p a rtie s . S e e G J R I n v s ., I n c . v . C o u n tyo f E s c a m b ia , 1 3 2 F .3 d1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 98 ). T hu s, w e hol d thatW al ker has abando ned any chal l enge t o the di stri ct c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f

h is c o m p la in t a s b a rr e db yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . E ven i f W al ker pres erved a chal l enge on thi s groun d, the di stri ctcourt p r o p e r lyf

o u n d th a t W a lk e r ’s c la im s w e r e b a rr e db yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . F i r s t , the di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l yf ound tha tW a l ke r ’ s B i ve ns c l a i m s w oul d be barr ed by the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s. W al ker’ s c om pl ai nt , dat ed A pri l 30 , 20 03 , w as fi l ed m ore than three ye ar s a ft erhe w as transfe rr ed fr om the U ni t ed S t at es P e ni t e nt i a ryi n A t l a nt a( “ U S P A t l a nt a ” ) on A pr i l 3, 2000. W a l ke r ’ s c om pl a i nt re fl ec t s thathi s e ye prob l em s w orse ned throu gh ou thi s nearl y f ou r y ear t erm at6

U S P A tla n taa n d th a t h e w a s a w a r e o f th e in ju ryb yA p r il 3 , 2 0 0 0 a t th e la te s t. T hus , W a l ke r ’ s B i ve ns c l a i m s w e r e be y ond the tw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od, unl e s s e qui t abl e t ol l i ng appl i e d. W e ha ve de c l i ne d t o de c i de w he the rthe s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons i s t ol l e d i n a§ 1983 c a s e w hi l e ape t i t i one ri s pur s ui ng a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s . S e e L e a l v. G e or gi aD e pt . of C orr e c t i ons , 254 F . 3d 1276, 1 2 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . E v e n if to llin g ap p lie d , h o w e v e r , W a lk e r ’s c o m p la in t o n ly re fl ec t s thathe pu rs ued adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es fr om F ebruary20 02 t o January 2 0 0 3 , w h i ch w o u l d st i l l l eav e h i s co m p l ai n to u t si d e o f th e tw o -year p eri o d . T h u s, the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yf ound tha tW a l ke r ’ s B i ve ns c l a i m w a s ba rr e d bythe s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . Se c o n d , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rta l s o c o rr e c t l yf o u n dth a tW a l k e r ’ s FTCA c l a i ms w er e barre d b y the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s. W al ker’ s c om pl ai ntst at es thathe fi l ed hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c l a i m on M a r c h 30, 2002. W e know tha tW a l ke rha s a l l e ge d no in ju rya f te rh e w a s tr a n s f

e rr e d f r o m U S P A tla n tao n A p r il 3 , 2 0 0 0 . T h e r e f o r e , to f a l l w i thi n the tw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od, W a l ke r ’ s c l a i m m us tha ve ac crued b etw ee n M ar ch 30 , 20 00 , and A pri l 3, 20 00 , the dat e he w as transfe rr ed f r o m U S P A tla n ta . W a lk e r ’s c o m p la in t o n lys ta te s th a t h e w a s p la c e din as e p a r a te ar eai n p re para t i on for hi s transfe r duri ng tho se four days and d oes notal l ege that a n yin ju ryo c c u rr e d o rth a t a n yp r e e x is tin g in ju ryw a s e x a c e rb a te dd u r in g th a t tim e .7

W a l k e ra l s o d o e s n o ti n d i c a t e th a th e l e a rn e do f a n yi n j u rya f t e rh e l e f tU SP A t l a n t a . To th e c o n tr a ry , W a l k e r ’ s c o mp l a i n tr e f l e c t s th a th e w a s i n

j u r e da tU SP A t l an t a an d w as aw are o f h i s eye i n j u ri es b efo re M arch 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 . B ecau se W al ker’ s c om pl ai ntdo es no tre fl ec tany s etof fa ct s thathe coul d p rove t o sat i sf y th e s t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yf o u n dth a tW a l k e r ’ s FTCA cl ai m s w ere b arred b y th e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s. AF F I RME D.