Opinion ID: 2279668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts relevant to the statute of limitations issue

Text: Upon his release from the hospital, Tinker was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon, namely, the knife that he had been carrying in his pocket. He pleaded guilty to this charge on December 6, 1988, and at a later date he was sentenced to serve nine months in prison. [1] For reasons not entirely clear from the record, Tinker was mistakenly released from Lorton Reformatory on August 11, 1989. Soon thereafter, however, the District of Columbia Board of Parole issued a warrant for his arrest, stating that he was on parole from an earlier sentence for robbery and that the Board had information that he was in violation of his parole. He was re-arrested on September 15, 1989, and returned to Lorton to complete the remainder of his robbery sentence. On July 14, 1990, Tinker was transferred to a halfway house, and on September 28, 1990, he was again released on parole. On July 19, 1991, Tinker filed a three-count civil action against the District of Columbia, seeking redress for the injuries he had allegedly suffered as a result of his arrest on September 10, 1988. [2] On August 23 the District filed its answer denying the substantive allegations in the complaint. Five months later, on January 24, 1992, the parties filed a stipulation stating that the issue of excessive force is one within the ken of the jury and will not be presented through expert testimony by either the plaintiff or the defendant. On April 13, 1992, the District filed a motion for leave to amend its answer by adding a claim that the assault count was barred by the statute of limitations. In a memorandum filed in support of this motion, the District stated (1) that the initial omission of the statute of limitations defense in its answer was inadvertent, (2) that relevant case law provides that leave to amend shall be freely given, and (3) that Tinker would suffer no prejudice attributable to the timing of the request for amendment. A few weeks later, on May 27, the District filed a motion for summary judgment on the assault claim, arguing that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Tinker opposed both motions, and the court denied them both in a nine-page order. Some time later the case was tried before a jury, which awarded Tinker $500,000 in damages. The District moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the court denied. This appeal followed.