Source: https://m.openjurist.org/981/f2d/254
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 14:24:21
Document Index: 100737484

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 16', '§ 1983', '§ 16', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983']

981 F. 2d 254 - Gartrell v. Rs Gaylor
981 F2d 254 Gartrell v. Rs Gaylor
981 F.2d 254
William Hamilton GARTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Although the defense of limitations is an affirmative defense, which usually must be raised by the defendants in the district court, this court has held that the district court may raise the defense sua sponte in an action proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir.1990); Burrell v. Newsome, 883 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir.1989). Thus, where it is clear from the face of a complaint filed in forma pauperis that the claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, those claims are properly dismissed pursuant to § 1915(d). Ali, 892 F.2d at 440; Burrell, 883 F.2d at 418. The district court dismissed the bulk of Gartrell's claims on this basis. After a careful review of the record, however, we conclude that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion.
Because there is no federal statute of limitations for civil rights actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal court borrows the forum state's general personal injury limitations period. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 573, 581-82, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989); Jackson v. Johnson, 950 F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir.1992). In Texas, the applicable limitations period is two years. See TEX.CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 16.003(a) (Vernon 1986). Gartrell does not dispute the application of this two-year limitations period; rather, he argues that his claims are not barred because his complaint was filed within two years of the denial of his final administrative appeal. Liberally construed, Gartrell's argument presents two possibilities: (1) his claims did not accrue until the denial of his final appeal, or (2) the statute of limitations was tolled while he exhausted his administrative remedies. We examine each of these possibilities in turn.
Although we look to Texas law to determine the applicable limitations period, federal law governs when a cause of action under § 1983 accrues. Lavellee v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129, 1130 (5th Cir.1980). Under federal law, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action. Id. at 831. The statute of limitations therefore begins to run when the plaintiff is in possession of the "critical facts that he has been hurt and who has inflicted the injury...." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Gartrell argues that his claims could not accrue until his final administrative appeal was denied because he did not know that the "injuries he had suffered"--the loss of good-time credit and solitary confinement--would remain in effect. This argument, however, misses the point of a civil rights action such as Gartrell's. The alleged "injury" is not the punishment imposed, but the failure of prison officials to abide by established disciplinary or grievance procedures. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1248-51 (1989); Green v. Ferrell, 801 F.2d 765, 768-69 (5th Cir.1986). The injury occurs, if at all, when the procedures are disregarded or abused.
In applying the forum state's statute of limitations, the federal court should also give effect to any applicable tolling provisions. Rodriguez v. Holmes, 963 F.2d 799, 803 (5th Cir.1992); Jackson v. Johnson, 950 F.2d at 265. Although Texas law formerly considered imprisonment to be a disability that tolled the running of the statute of limitations, that is no longer the case. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE § 16.001 (Vernon 1988). Texas courts, however, have developed a common-law tolling rule that tolls the running of the limitations period when a person is prevented from exercising a legal remedy by the pendency of legal proceedings. See Rodriguez, 963 F.2d at 804-05 (citing Texas cases); Jackson v. Johnson, 950 F.2d at 265-66 (citing Texas cases). We have found that this rule operates to toll the running of the limitations period in cases where a state prisoner is required to exhaust state remedies before proceeding with a claim in federal court. See Rodriguez, 963 F.2d at 805; see also Jackson v. Johnson, 950 F.2d at 266-67 (concluding that the tolling provision may apply but remanding to the district court for further development of the issue).
While it is well-settled that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is generally not a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Congress has now carved out a "specific, limited exhaustion requirement for adult prisoners." Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 508, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 2563-64, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982). Under § 1997e of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j, district courts now have the discretion to require an inmate to exhaust prison grievance procedures prior to having his case heard in federal court. Rocky v. Vittorie, 813 F.2d 734, 736 (5th Cir.1987). Failure to exhaust those procedures can result in dismissal of the complaint. Id.; see also Martin v. Catalanotto, 895 F.2d 1040, 1042 (5th Cir.1990); Lay v. Anderson, 837 F.2d 231, 233 (5th Cir.1988).
Before the exhaustion requirement can be invoked, the district court must find that it "would be appropriate and in the interests of justice," and the grievance procedures must be certified by the Attorney General or a federal district court as meeting certain minimum standards. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(1)-(2), (b). The TDCJ procedures were certified by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on May 31, 1989. Thus, in the instant case, it was within the discretion of the district court to require Gartrell to exhaust the TDCJ grievance procedures before proceeding with his civil rights action.3
Because Gartrell could have been required to exhaust the TDCJ grievance procedures before proceeding with his action in the district court, we conclude that he has, at the very least, a colorable claim that the Texas tolling provision discussed, supra, would have operated to toll the limitations period until he had exhausted those procedures. In light of this conclusion, we cannot say that it is clear from the face of Gartrell's complaint that those aspects of Gartrell's complaint that occurred more than two years prior to the filing of this action are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. His complaint thus does not "lack[ ] an arguable basis in law," nor is it based upon "an indisputably meritless legal theory...." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1831-32, 1832-33. We therefore conclude that the district court's dismissal of those aspects of Gartrell's complaint pursuant to § 1915(d) constituted an abuse of discretion.
Gartrell's civil rights complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to deprive him of good-time credit in retaliation for his prison writ-writing activities. In particular, Gartrell alleges that Collins, as part of that conspiracy, "willfully, knowingly and maliciously" denied him an impartial administrative review of the TDCJ disciplinary proceedings. Because this court has recognized that a prisoner may have a protected liberty interest in prison grievance procedures, see Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d at 1248-49, we are not willing to say, as the district court did, that a claim such as Gartrell's has no arguable basis in law. As we have noted, that label is reserved for claims based upon "an indisputably meritless legal theory." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833.
Moreover, although Gartrell has alleged few facts to support his claim that Collins conspired to deny him an impartial review in retaliation for his writ-writing activities, the facts he has alleged are not "clearly baseless." Id. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. The Supreme Court has specifically instructed that such a conclusion is warranted only "when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible...." Denton, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1733. The district court thus has the power under § 1915(d) to dismiss complaints based upon "fanciful," "fantastic," or "delusional" facts. See Id. (quoting Neitzke). "An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely. Some improbable allegations may properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many allegations might be 'strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction.' " Id. --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1733-34 (quoting Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan & W. Pratt eds. 1977)). We conclude therefore that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Gartrell's allegations against defendant Collins as having "no arguable basis in law or fact."
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)
On remand, the district court should consider whether Gartrell's complaint that he was unconstitutionally deprived of his good-time earning status challenges the duration of his confinement and therefore is cognizable in habeas corpus, with its own exhaustion requirement. See Wilson v. Foti, 832 F.2d 891, 892 (5th Cir.1987) (Where a state prisoner attacks the duration of his confinement, " 'the appropriate cause of action is a petition for habeas corpus, even though the facts of the complaint might otherwise be sufficient to state a claim under § 1983.' " (quoting Caldwell v. Line, 679 F.2d 494, 496 (5th Cir.1982))); Serio v. Members of the Louisiana State Bd. of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir.1987) ("If a prisoner challenges a single hearing as constitutionally defective, he must first exhaust state habeas remedies."); Alexander v. Ware, 714 F.2d 416, 419 (5th Cir.1983) ("If a prisoner challenges a 'single allegedly defective [disciplinary] hearing,' he attacks, in essence, the fact and duration of his custody."). In such cases, we have required prisoners to exhaust the TDCJ grievance procedures. See Baxter v. Estelle, 614 F.2d 1030, 1031-32 (5th Cir.1980) ("[A] federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief to a petitioner who has failed to exhaust all administrative remedies, including an appeal to the Director of Corrections."), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1085, 101 S.Ct. 873, 66 L.Ed.2d 810 (1981); Lerma v. Estelle, 585 F.2d 1297, 1299 (5th Cir.1978) (holding that a Texas prisoner who had not exhausted "his clearly available administrative remedies" was properly denied habeas relief in the district court), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 848, 100 S.Ct. 95, 62 L.Ed.2d 62 (1979)