FI L ED

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Oct. 29, 2009

THOMAS K. KAH

N

CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 9

- 1 3 1 4 9

N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 9

- 2 1 5 1 2

- C V

- U U

R O C H E L L E D R I E S S E N

, M o t h e r o f m i n o r c h i l d r e n B

. O

. D / O / B 1 9 9 3

, a n d B

. O

. D / O / B 1 9 9 4

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t

,

v e r s u s

F L O R I D A D E P A R T M E N T O F C H I L D R E N A N D F A M I L I E S

, B A L H A R B O U R P O L I C E D E P A R T M E N T

,

D e f e n d a n t s

- A p p e l l e e s

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( O c t o b e r 2 9

, 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e B L A C K

, C A R N E S a n d B A R K E T T

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :R o c h e l l e D r i e s s e n , p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s s u a s p o n t e

d i s m i s s a l o f h e r c o m p l a i n t f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a b a s i s f

o r f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d

f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 8 ( a )

. B e c a u s e

D r i e s s e n ’ s c l a i m s a r e b a r r e d b y t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , w e a f f i r m t h e

c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f h e r c o m p l a i n t

. 1

D r i e s s e n c o n t e n d s t h e F l o r i d a D e p a r t m e n t o f C h i l d r e n a n d F a m i l i e s ( F D C F )

,

a n d t h e B a l H a r b o u r P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t v i o l a t e d h e r r i g h t s w h e n t h e y r e m o v e d h e r

t w o m i n o r c h i l d r e n f

r o m h e r c u s t o d y o n F e b r u a r y 9

, 2 0 0 5

. A l t h o u g h D r i e s s e n

d o e s n o t c i t e 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 i n h e r c o m p l a i n t

, s h e a p p e a r s t o r a i s e t w o c l a i m s

u n d e r t h a t s t a t u t e w h e n s h e a l l e g e s t h a t B a l H a r b o u r a n d F D C F : ( 1 ) v i o l a t e d h e r

d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s b y n o t f o l l o w i n g F l o r i d a ’ s p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r

r e m o v i n g m i n o r c h i l d r e n f r o m a p a r e n t ’ s c u s t o d y ; a n d ( 2 ) l a c k e d p r o b a b l e c a u s e

u n d e r t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t t o t a k e c u s t o d y o f h e r c h i l d r e n

. 2

W e r e v i e w d e n o v o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f

Driesse n appea ls on three g rounds: (1) the district c ourt err ed in dismissi ng her 1 complaint sua sponte whe n the summons had not y et bee n issued or ser ved on the de fenda

nts; (2)
her c omplaint should not have be en dismissed beca use she sa tisfied the re quirements of F ed. R.
Civ. P . 8(a) ; and (3) she was not time-bar red by the statute of limitations. Bec ause w e conc lude
that her c omplaint was in fac t time-barr ed by the statute of limitations, we do not addre ss the
other two issues.

Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 8 re quires that fe dera l courts g ive pleading s a libera l 2

rea ding. “ This admonition is particula rly true whe n the par

ties are proce eding pro se. Courts do
and should show a lenie ncy to pro se litiga

nts not enjoy ed by

those with the bene fit of a leg al
education.” GJ R I nvestments, I nc. v. County of Esca mbia, Fla.,132 F .3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998).

2s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s

. C e n t e r f o r B i o l o g i c a l D i v e r s i t y v

. H a m i l t o n , 4 5 3 F

. 3 d 1 3 3 1

,

1 3 3 4 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 6 )

. “ [ A ] p l a i n t i f f m u s t c o m m e n c e a § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m a r i s i n g i n

F l o r i d a w i t h i n f

o u r y e a r s o f t h e a l l e g e d l y u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r o t h e r w i s e i l l e g a l a c t

. ”

B u r t o n v

. C i t y o f B e l l e G l a d e , 1 7 8 F

. 3 d 1 1 7 5

, 1 1 8 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 9 ) ; s e e a l s o F l a

.

S t a t

. § 9 5

. 1 1 ( 3 ) ( p )

. F o r a c a u s e o f a c t i o n u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 t h e l i m i t a t i o n s c l o c k b e g i n s

t o r u n w h e n “ t h e p l a i n t i f f s k n o w o r s h o u l d k n o w ( 1 ) t h a t t h e y h a v e s u f f e r e d t h e

i n j u r y t h a t f

o r m s t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r c o m p l a i n t a n d ( 2 ) w h o h a s i n f l i c t e d t h e i n

j u r y

. ”

C h a p p e l l v

. R i c h

, 3 4 0 F

. 3 d 1 2 7 9

, 1 2 8 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 3 )

.

T h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s o f D r i e s s e n ’ s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o c c u r r e d o n

F e b r u a r y 9

, 2 0 0 5

, w h e n F D C S a n d B a l H a r b o u r r e m o v e d h e r c h i l d r e n f r o m h e r

c u s t o d y , a n d D r i e s s e n f i l e d h e r c o m p l a i n t o n J u n e 4

, 2 0 0 9

. B e c a u s e a p p r o x i m a t e l y

f o u r y e a r s a n d f

o u r m o n t h s p a s s e d b e t w e e n w h e n D r i e s s e n k n e w o f t h e i n j u r y ( a n d

w h o c a u s e d i t ) a n d w h e n s h e f i l e d h e r c o m p l a i n t

, D r i e s s e n ’ s s u i t i s c l e a r l y t i m e

b a r r e d b y F l o r i d a S t a t u t e § 9 5

. 1 1 ( 3 ) ( p )

. 3

D r i e s s e n a r g u e s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s d o e s n o t a p p l y b e c a u s e h e r

Driesse n alleg es that F DCS and Ba l Harbour violated Fla . Stat. § 39.402(13), which 3 states, in part, that “ A child may not be held in a she lter under an orde r so direc ting f

or more than 60 day s without an adjudication of de pendenc y .” This 60-da y time limi t was violated,
Driesse n arg ues, bec ause the shelter or der r eg arding her c hildren wa s issued on Fe bruar y 9, 2005, but there w as no adjudica tory hear ing until J uly

1, 2005. Driesse n’s brief to this C ourt

arg ues the 60-da

y time period lapsed on A

pril 10, 2005. But eve n if the limitations clock did not beg in until t hat date, the statute of limitations would have expired on April 10, 2009, approximately

two months before Driesse n filed suit.

3c h i l d r e n a r e s t i l l w i t h i n t h e s t a t e ’ s c u s t o d y , b u t t h a t f a c t d o e s n o t e x t e n d t h e t i m e

l i m i t t h a t s h e h a d t o f

i l e h e r c o m p l a i n t

. F l o r i d a l a w d o e s a l l o w f o r t o l l i n g o f t h e

s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , b u t t h i s i s n o t o n e o f t h e m

. S e e F l a

.

S t a t

. § 9 5

. 0 5 1 ; s e e a l s o C h a p p e l l

, 3 4 0 F

. 3 d a t 1 2 8 3 ; J u s t i c e v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 6 F

. 3 d

1 4 7 4

, 1 4 7 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i s a n “ e x t r a o r d i n a r y

r e m e d y ” t h a t i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e w h e n t h e p l a i n t i f f r e a s o n a b l y s h o u l d h a v e k n o w n t h e

l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d w a s r u n n i n g )

.

W h i l e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t u n e q u i v o c a l l y h o l d t h a t D r i e s s e n ’ s c o m p l a i n t

w a s t i m e

- b a r r e d

, w e a f

f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o n t h i s g r o u n d

. S e e , e

. g

. ,

C o c h r a n v

. U

. S

. H e a l t h C a r e F i n

. A d m i n

. , 2 9 1 F

. 3 d 7 7 5

, 7 7 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 2 )

( “ [ W ] e m a y a f

f i r m f o r a n y r e a s o n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d

. ” )

.

A F F I R M E D

.

4