Legal Document

490 U.S. 536 109 S.Ct. 1998 104 L.Ed.2d 582 Tyrone Victor HARDIN, Petitionerv.Dennis STRAUB. No. 87-7023. Argued March 22, 1989. Decided May Syllabus In 1986, petitioner, who is incarcerated in a Michigan state prison, filed pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison authorities had deprived him of his federal constitutional rights during 1980 and 1981. The Federal District Court sua sponte dismissed the because it been after expiration Michigan's 3-year statutory limitations period for personal injury actions, which applicable civil actions 1988 this Court's decisions. Appeals affirmed, refusing to apply statute suspends periods persons legal disability, including prisoners, until one year disability has removed. Held: A court applying an inmate's action should give effect State's provision tolling prisoners. Appeals' ruling contrary conflicts with Board Regents, University New York v. Tomanio, 446 478, 100 1790, 64 440, held suits are be determined by reference appropriate coordinate rules, as long law would not defeat goals at issue. consistent 1983's remedial purpose, since some inmates may loathe sue adversaries whose daily supervision control they remain subject, even those do file suit have fair opportunity t establish validity their allegations while confined. Pp. 538-544. 836 F.2d 549 (C.A.6 1987) reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Douglas Ryan Mullkoff, Ann Arbor, Mich., petitioner. Louis J. Caruso, Lansing, respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 This case presents question whether 2 Petitioner prison. 1986 he pursuant 1983, approximately 180 days 1981 solitary confinement violation rights.1 actions. affirmed. (CA6 1987). Following its 3-day-old decision Higley Department Corrections, 835 623 1987), refused Because holding appeared conflict our 440 (1980), we granted certiorari.2 488 887, 217, 102 209 (1988). We now reverse. 3 enacting Congress gaps acts filled law, inconsistent law.3 See Burnett Grattan, 468 42, 47-48, 2924, 2928-2929, 82 36 (1984). no governs, courts routinely measure timeliness law. Id., 49, S.Ct., 2929; Chardon Fumero Soto, 462 650, 655-656, 103 2611, 2615-2616, 77 74 (1983); Johnson Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 454, 464, 95 1716, 1722, 44 295 (1975). tradition borrowing analogous statutes, cf. O'Sullivan Felix, 233 318, 34 596, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914), based on congressional defer "the judgment proper balance between policies repose substantive enforcement embodied cause action." Wilson Garcia, 471 261, 271, 105 1938, 1944, 85 254 (1985).4 "In virtually all statutes chronological length limitation interrelated provisions regarding tolling, revival, questions application." Johnson, supra, U.S., 1722. Courts thus unravel rules unless full application See, e.g., Wilson, 269, 1943; Chardon, 657, 2616. 4 These principles were invoked review contention was barred York's statute. rejected defense relying "federal rule" contained among legislature codified periods. 482, 486, 1794, 1796. reversed. Limitations "state rules"; legislative choices regard therefore "binding law." 484, 1795. Since did either chief compensation deterrence5 or subsidiary uniformity federalism, Tomanio's time barred. 488-492, 1797-1799. 5 It undisputed three years, established governing actions.6 Owens Okure, 235, 573, 594 (1989); supra. 1846, however, Legislature enacted onset prisoners others suffering from disabilities.7 contemporary counterpart provides: 6 "[I]f person first entitled make entry bring 18 years age, insane, imprisoned claim accrues, claiming shall removed through death otherwise, although run." Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. 600.5851(1) (1987).8 7 Having passed 1961,9 revised 1972 without altering prisoners' lawsuits. committee recognized: 8 " '[E]ven can though allowed personally present, so nece sary provide removal past when these disabilities considerably more real. Nevertheless, considered better allow short termination could action.' Hawkins Justin, Mich.App. 743, 748, 311 N.W.2d 465, 467 (1981) (per curiam ), quoting comment following 600.5851, p. 914 (1968). 9 Likewise, amendments affect applicability inmates. historical note 540 (1987). 10 employed 600.5851 toll state-law libel plaintiff correctional institution. "[T]he purpose additional assert rights," concluded, "and reasonably upon fact restricted access judicial system due confinement." 748-749, N.W.2d, 467. 11 Sixth Circuit nonetheless inmates' Although recognized "obligated result policy," id., 624, "application lengthy clearly counterproductive sound policy attempting deal claims promptly practicable," 626-627.10 Tolling neither nor required goal compensating violated, stated. Its turned two other interests, discussed tandem: settled deterring officials' unconstitutional behavior novel "rehabilitative function [of] providing 'safety valve' prisoner grievances."11 626. Concluding quick disposition advances latter policies, declined it. 12 agree Appeals. does frustrate goal. Rather, enhances ability recover damages injuries.12 Nor hinder deterrence interest. event official's misconduct ongoing, will interest enjoining it; thus, official unknowingly violate Constitution well short. State also decided if knows act unconstitutional, risk she might haled into indefinitely likely check misbehavior than knowledge escape challenge conduct within brief time. overlooked point unfortunate intermeshing dubious function."13 13 As pointed out, ibid., many willing able custody. Thus, decide there need enact such suits. Alternatively, conclude against reflects lessen any difficulties extending seek recovery injuries. Such purpose.14 14 reversed, remanded further proceedings opinion. 15 ordered. alleged petitioner never received hearing detention, administrative regulation provided: 'A resident afforded . before being classified segergation (sic); temporarily segregation status pending order institution head, residents' [sic] request. exceed four (4) weekdays.' Corrections Administrative Rule 791.4405, quoted App. 7. contends detention violated Eighth Fourteenth Amendments Constitution. 8. Tomanio decided, considering regularly applied States' Hughes Sheriff Fall River County Jail, 814 532 (CA8) (despite South Dakota statute's express exclusion suits, holds benefit provision), appeal dism'd, 484 802, 108 46, 98 (1987); Bailey Faulkner, 765 (CA7 1985) (applying Indiana "hopelessly archaic" given courts); Whitson Baker, 755 1406 (CA11 ) (affirms Supreme interpreting Alabama convicted despite court's doubt necessary); Stephan Dowdle, 733 642 (CA9 1984) (mentioning state-court interpretation overrules precedent Arizona's applies 1983); Turner Evans, 721 341 1983) (without discussing Georgia provision); Enomoto, 633 164 1980) (citing pre-Tomanio precedent, gives California's statute); Miller Smith, 625 43 (CA5 (in light reverses earlier same Texas' prisoner's right suit); Brown Bigger, 622 1025 (CA10 mentioning Kansas suit). Section provides "deficient necessary furnish suitable remedies punish offenses common modified changed constitution wherein having jurisdiction criminal held, far laws United States, extended govern said trial cause. ." Cf. 662, 2619, (1983) ("Until enacts litigation, comparable ultimately solve problems presented antitrust must continue practice 'limitations borrowing' outlined ") (footnote omitted). reiterated just last Term 'the central objective Reconstruction-Era ensure individuals rig ts abridged secure injunctive relief.' 55, 2932, 'a uniquely remedy incursions secured Nation,' Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 239, 92 2151, 2160, 32 705 (1972), accorded sweep broad language.' States Price, 383 787, 801, 86 1152, 1160, 16 267 (1966)." Felder Casey, 487 131, 139, 2302, 2307, 101 123 pertinent states: "The person, property." 600.5805(8) various "personal actions" begin accruing "any age twenty-one married woman, absent States" "after removed." Mich.Rev.Stat., Tit. 26, ch. 140, (1846). Similar protected "disabled" defendants ejectment plaintiffs real property 23, 108, 39; 5. Other currently allowing lawsuits include: Ala.Code 6-2-8 (1975); Ark.Code 16-56-116 (1987) (if "imprisoned beyond limits state"); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code 352 (West Supp.1989); Haw.Rev.Stat. 657-13 (1985) (does "actions sheriff, police, officers"); Idaho Code 5-230 (Supp.1988); Ill.Rev.Stat., 110, ¶ 13-211 (excludes "against Illinois present employee Corrections"); Kan.Stat.Ann. 60-515 (inapplicable "has purposes bringing action"); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., 14, 853 Minn.Stat. 541.15 (1988); Mo.Rev.Stat. 516.170 (1986); Mont.Code 27-2-401 Neb.Rev.Stat. 25-213 (1985); N.D.Cent.Code 28-01-25 (Supp.1987); Ohio Rev.Code 2305.16 (1981); Ore.Rev.Stat. 12.160 R.I.Gen.Laws 9-1-19 S.C.Code 15-3-40 Vt.Stat.Ann., 12, 551 Va.Code 8.01-229 (Supp.1988) (limited "convict committee"); Wash.Rev.Code 4.16.190 Wis.Stat. 893.16 (1985-1986). Accord, D.C.Code 12-302 (1981). 1961 Mich.Pub. Acts, 236, 5851 (effective Jan. 1, 1963). There is, course, disposing litigation expeditiously possible. But prompt resolution disputes vindicated always balanced countervailing valid merits. reason why strike cases limitations, done so. least 1914, see tacitly approved legislatures conflicting interests. adjudication cannot properly characterized separate "inconsistent" provision; rather, interests weighed arriving borrow. derived commentary Court: "We help but believe that, rehabilitative described above, deter officials misconduct, vital. Promptness important, think, complaining current incarcerators violating, rights. To release section offender, rehabilit tion victim. erects barriers courts, 'inconsistent' Vargas Jago, 636 F.Supp. 425, 429 (SD 1986), F.2d, While recognizing open-ended occasionally let inmate term antiquated events, Brief Respondent occur frequently. passage time—during memories dim, witnesses depart, evidence disappear—is necessarily advantage plaintiff. For shoulders burden proof, vast difference preserving convincing trier complaint's true. notion "rehabilitative" unmeritorious brought attention judges simply means reducing tension meritless. 275, 1946, (1985), uniformity, certainty, minimization unnecessary litigation" borrowed cases. weigh provision. 22-27. disagree. Those determining fosters 1983. 2616 (In "specifically argument justified displacement rules").

Classification Label: 1