Court Opinion

ID: 9396534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 21:01:32.760421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.714351
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11774   Document: 30-1    Date Filed: 05/22/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                               No. 22-11774
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       EDDIE FORD, JR.,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       FRANK GRISWALD,
       A. GARRETT,

                                               Defendants-Appellees,

       LOVELESS JOHNSON,

                                                          Defendant.
USCA11 Case: 22-11774      Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 05/22/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11774

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00083-MHT-SRW
                           ____________________

       Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Eddie Ford, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       order dismissing as time-barred his complaint alleging that prison
       officials violated his due process rights by removing his good-time
       earning status. Specifically, Ford alleges that prison officials vio-
       lated his civil rights in 1991 when the Alabama Department of Cor-
       rections removed his good-time earning status. He argues that he
       timely filed his complaint because he was entitled to tolling of the
       two-year statute of limitations while he pursued related relief in
       state court.
              We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and ap-
       plication of the applicable statute of limitations. Ctr. for Biological
       Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11th Cir. 2006).
              All constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
       § 1983 are considered tort actions that are subject to the statute of
       limitations governing personal injury actions in the state where the
       Section 1983 claim is filed. McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th
       Cir. 2008); see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394 (2007) (holding
       that state law also determines statutory tolling rules in Section 1983
USCA11 Case: 22-11774       Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 05/22/2023      Page: 3 of 3

       22-11774                Opinion of the Court                           3

       actions). In Alabama, the governing statute of limitations is two
       years. McNair, 515 F.3d at 1173. In general, after a limitations period
       has run, the action is barred, regardless of the merits of the plain-
       tiff’s claims. Arce v. Garcia, 434 F.3d 1254, 1261 (11th Cir. 2006). But,
       under the doctrine of equitable tolling, the statute of limitations is
       paused “when a litigant has pursued his rights diligently, but some
       extraordinary circumstance prevents him from bringing a timely
       action.” Fedance v. Harris, 1 F.4th 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2021) (quo-
       tation marks omitted).
               Assuming without deciding that pursuing relief in state
       court tolls the Section 1983 statute of limitations, the district court
       did not err in concluding that Ford’s complaint was time-barred.
       “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
       drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”
       Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
       Construed liberally, Ford argues that he is entitled to equitable toll-
       ing based on litigation in state court. But he ﬁled this complaint
       nearly 30 years after the events that triggered the statute of limita-
       tions. The record also establishes that he was not pursuing any state
       court remedies between 1996 and 2008. Accordingly, Ford’s state
       court actions do not render the late complaint timely within Ala-
       bama’s two-year statute of limitations.
              AFFIRMED.