FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT APR 6, 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. 06- 14137 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 33 -C V -6 A L I C E R O B E R T S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s T H E S T A T E O F G E O R G I A , D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S O F T H E S T A T E O F G E O R G I A , F R E D B R O W N , H U G H S M I T H , J O H N D O E , e t a l., 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

_________________________ ( A p r i l6, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: A l i ce R ob ert s app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdi sm i ss i ng a l aw sui ti n w hi ch s h e a s s e r t e d c l a i ms u n d e rTi t l e V I I o f th e Ci v i l Ri g h t s A c to f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U . S. C. § § 2 0 0 0 e e ts e q . , th e A g e D i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n Emp l o y me n tA c to f 1 9 6 7 , 2 9 U . S. C. § 6 21 etse q. , and 4 2 U . S . C . §§ 19 83 , 19 85 . T he qu es t i on on appeal i s w hether G eorgi a’ s r enew al -of- cl ai m s s t atut e, G a. C od e A nn . § 9 -2-61, funct i on s t o save her cl ai m s fro m th e o th erw i se-ap p l i cab l e st atu t es o f l i m i t at i o n s. I. R o b e r ts w a s f

ir e d f r o m h e rjo b a s ac o rr e c tio n a l o f f ic e ra t R e id s v ille S ta te P r i s on i n R e i ds vi l l e , G e or gi aon O c t obe r22, 2003, a nd r e c e i ve d ar i ght - t o- s ue not i c e f r om the E qua l E m pl oy m e ntO ppor tuni ty C om m i s s i on s om e t i m e a r ound S e pt e m be r28, 2004. A l i tt l e l e s s tha n thr e e m onths l a t e r , on D e c e m be r23, 2004, R ob ert s f i l ed a c om pl ai nti n the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the S ou thern D i s tr i c tof

G e or gi a , na m i ng a s de f e nda nt s the S t a t e of

G e or gi a , i t s D e pa r tm e ntof C o rrect i o n s, an d v ari o u s i n d i v i d u al s. A ppa r e nt l y , tha t ’ s a l l R obe r t s di d be c aus e on A ugus t29, 2005— s om e e i ght m o n th s aft er th e fi l i n g o f h er l aw su i t

— th e d i stri ctco u rto rd ered h er t o sh o w cau se w h y s h e h a d n o t s e rv e d a n y o f th e d e f e n d a n ts w ith as u m m o n s a n d th e c o m p la in t. A f t e rthi s s how - c aus e or de r , R obe r t s s prung i nt o a c t i on, s e rvi ng e a c h of the3

vari ou s def

endant s duri ng the m on th o f S ept em ber 200 5. N on ethel es s, on O ct ob er 24, 2005 the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s the a c t i on w i thoutpr e

j udi c e f orR obe r t s ’ f

a i l ur e t o s e rve the m w i thi n 120 da y s of f i l i ng the c o m p la in t a s r e q u ir e d b y F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 ( m ) . O n M ar ch 20 , 20 06 , R ob ert s tri ed t o st artov er . S he fi l ed an i dent i ca l com pl ai nti n the di stri ctcourtand p rom pt l y s erved the vari ou s def endant s. F or a s e c o n d tim e , h o w e v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s . T hi s t i m e the r e a s on f

orthe di s m i s s a l w a s tha tthe r e l e va nts t a tut e s of l i m i t a t i ons b ar re d R o b er ts’ claim s, an d th e d istrict co u rt re jected h erar g u m en t th at G eo rg ia’s r e n e w a l s ta tu te ap p lie d to s a v e h e rc la im s . T h is s e c o n d d is m is s a l, u n lik e th e f ir s t, w a s w ith p r e

ju d ic e , a n d it is th is s e c o n d o r d e ro f d is m is s a l th a t R o b e r ts ap p e a ls here . II. O n ap p e a l, R o b e r ts a g a in c ite s th e r e n e w a l s ta tu te , w h ic h th e G e o r g iac o u r ts ha ve he l d i s t o be “ c ons true d l i be r a l l y t o a l l ow r e ne w a l w he r e as ui ti s di s pos e d of on a ny gr ound nota f

f e c t i ng i t s m e r i t s . ” H obbs v. A r thur , 444 S . E . 2d 322, 323 ( G a . 1 9 9 4 ) . T h a t s ta tu te p r o v id e s in p e r tin e n t p a r t: W hen any cas e has been com m ence d i n ei ther ast at e or f eder al court w i thi n the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s a nd the pl ai nt i ff di sc on t i nu es or di sm i ss es the sa m e, i tm aybe re com m ence d i n a court o f th is s ta te o rin af

e d e r a l c o u r t e ith e rw ith in th e o r ig in a l ap p lic ab le4

pe r i od of l i m i t a t i ons orw i thi n s i x m onths a f t e rthe di s c ont i nua nc e or d is m is s a l, w h ic h e v e ris la te r , s u b je c t to th e [ p a y m e n t o f

s ta tu to r ily pr e s c r i be d c our tc os t s ] ; pr ovi de d, how e ve r , i f the di s m i s s a l or di s c ont i nua nc e oc c ur s a f t e rthe e xpi r a t i on of

the appl i c abl e pe r i od of l i m i t at i on , thi s pri vi l ege of r enew al shal l be exerc i se d o nl y once. G a. C od e A nn . § 9 -2-61(a). W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s order di s m i s s i ng R obe r t s ’ c a s e . G a r f i e l d v. N D C H e a l th C orp. , 466 F . 3d 1255, 1261 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). T he pa r t i e s do notdi s put e tha tR obe r t s ’ f i r s tc om pl a i ntw a s t i m e l y ortha tthe pres entcom pl ai ntw as fi l ed w i thi n si x m on ths of the fi rs tcom pl ai nt ’ s di sm i ss al as r e q u ir e d b y § 9 - 2 - 6 1 ( a ) . T h u s , R o b e r ts a r g u e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c onc l udi ng tha the rc l a i m s w e r e t i m e - ba rr e d. I n he rbr i e f , R obe r t s e m pha s i z e s the factth atal l d efen d an t s w ere ev en tu al l y serv ed i n h er fi rstl aw su i t ; th ath er fi rst com pl ai ntw as thu s not“ vo i d” un der s t at e l aw atthe t i m e of i t s di sm i ss al ; and that a c c o r d in g ly , th e c la im s in h e rf ir s t c o m p la in t w e r e s u b

je c t to r e n e w a l. I n c ons i de r i ng R obe r t s ’ a r gum e nt s , w e f i r s tnot e tha tthe y ha ve no be a r i ng on the qu es t i on of w hether her cl ai m s und erT i t l e V II and the A D E A w er e t i m eba rr e d. T hi s i s be c aus e “ ac our tl ooks t o s t a t e l a w t o de f i ne the t i m e l i m i t a t i on appl i c abl e t o af

e de r a l c l a i m onl y w he n C ongr e s s ha s f a i l e d t o pr ovi de as t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

oraf e de r a l c aus e of

a c t i on. ” P hi l l i ps v . U ni t e d S t a t e s , 260 F . 3d 1316, 13 18 (1 1th C i r . 20 01 ) ( qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed) ( ci t i ng P i pk i n v . U ni t ed St at es5

P os t a l S e rv . , 951 F . 2d 272, 275 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ) . H e r e , C ongr e s s pr ovi de d a90- day l i m i t at i on s per i od for c l ai m s und erbo th o f these fe dera l st atut es , and, un der ea ch st atut e, the 90 -dayperi od begi ns runn i ng on the day the pl ai nt i f f r ec ei ves her r ig h t- to - s u e n o tic e f

r o m th e E E O C . 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 6 ( e ) ; 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( f ) ( 1 ) . R ob ert s has conceded thatshe r ec ei ved thi s not i ce i n the l as tdays of S ept em ber 20 04 , so i tfol l ow s thatshe had un t i l the end o f D ec em ber 200 4 t o fi l e her c om pl a i nt . T he c om pl a i nti n the pr e s e ntc a s e , f i l e d on M a r c h 20, 2006, di d not c om e c l os e t o m e e t i ng tha tde a dl i ne . A c c or di ngl y, the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rof di s m i s s a l a s t o the T i t l e V I I a nd A D E A c l a i m s i s due t o be a f f i rm e d. R ob ert s’ re l i ance on st at e l aw do es have a bear i ng on her c l ai m s und er§ 19 83 and § 19 85 . F or these st atut es , C on gres s di d n otspec i fya s t atut ory l i m i t at i on s per i od , so w e l oo k t o st at e l aw t o d et erm i ne w hen a cl ai m un der them m u stb e fi l ed . P rev i o u s d eci si o n s o f th i s C o u rtreco g n i ze th ati n G eo r g i a cases § 1983 c a rr i e s the tw o- y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od pr ovi de d i n G e or gi a ’ s s t a tut e of l i mi t a t i o n s f

o rp e r s o n a l - i n

j u ry c l a i ms , G a . Co d e A n n . § 9 - 3 - 3 3 . Se e , e . g . , W i l l i a ms v . Ci ty o f At l a n t a , 7 9 4 F . 2 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 8 6 ) . Th e s a me i s tru e f o r§ 19 85 . R ozarv . M ul l i s, 85 F . 3d 55 6, 56 1 (1 1th C i r . 19 96 ). W hether al aw sui tca n b e r e n e w e d a f

te rit h a s s u f

f e r e d an o n - m e r its d is m is s a l is a ls o aq u e s tio n o f s ta te l a w . S e e S c ottv . M us c oge e C ounty , 949 F . 2d 1 122, 1 123 ( 1 1th C i r . 1992)6

(a nal yz i ng the appl i cabi l i ty of the G eor gi a r enew al st atut e i n a § 1 98 3 act i on ). B y a r gui ng tha the rf

i r s tl a w s ui tw a s “ voi dabl e butnotvoi d, ” a nd by e m p h a s iz in g th a t a ll o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts w e r e u ltim a te ly ( th o u g h u n tim e ly ) s e rv e d in h er fi rstl aw su i t , R o b ert s co rrect l y reco g n i zes th atsh e m u stest ab l i sh th ath er fi rst la w s u it w a s n o t v o idu n d e rs ta te la w . O th e rw is e , s h e lo s e s b e c au s e “v o id ” la w s u its a r e n o t r e n e w ab le u n d e r§ 9 - 2 - 6 1 . H o b b s , 4 4 4 S .E .2 d a t 3 2 3 . N o t o n ly is ala w s u it v o id if s e rv ic e is n e v e rp e r f

e c te d , id ., b u t “[ a ] s u it is al so vo i d and i ncapabl e of r enew al un der [ G a. C od e A nn . ] § 9 -2-61(a) i f there has b e e n aju d ic ia l d e te rm in a tio n th a t d is m is s a l is a u th o r iz e d .” I d . A n d th a t is e x a c tly w hathapp ened t o R ob ert s’ fi rs tcom pl ai nt . T he di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned that d i sm i ssal o f th e co m p l ai n tw as au th o ri zed u n d er F ed . R . C i v . P . 4 (m ) fo r R o b ert s’ f a ilu r e to s e rv e th e d e f

e n d a n ts w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s o f f ilin g h e rc o m p la in t. T h is de t e rm i na t i on, the n, m e a nttha tR obe r t s ’ f i r s tl a w s ui tbe c a m e voi d, f orpurpos e s of G eo r g i a’ s ren ew al st atu t e, w h en th e d i stri ctco u rtg ran t ed th e d efen d an t s’ fi rst m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss. T h e ef fecto f th i s ch an g e i n st atu s i s cl ear: W h en R o b ert s’ fi rst l aw su i tb ecam e v o i d , th e G eo r g i a ren ew al st atu t e b ecam e i n ap p l i cab l e. S ee H o b b s, 4 4 4 S .E .2 d a t 3 2 3 . W i th the r e ne w a l s t a tut e outof the pi c tur e , a l l tha tr e m a i ns i s t o appl y the tw o - y e a rs ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . S in c e th e d e f e n d a n ts a r e a lle g e d to h a v e u n la w f u lly7

fi re d R ob ert s on O ct ob er22 , 20 03 , she had un t i l O ct ob er22 , 20 05 t o fi l e her c om pl a i nt . B y f

i l i ng the c om pl a i nton M a r c h 20, 2006, s he m i s s e d the de a dl i ne by al m ostfi ve m on ths. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderof di sm i ss al as t o the § 1983 a nd § 1985 c l a i m s i s a l s o due t o be a f f i rm e d. AF F I RME D.