Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dale v. Phillips

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee

February 15, 2018

ZIBERIA DALE a/k/a ZIBERIA CARERO, Plaintiff,
v.
SHAWN PHILLIPS, JOHN DOES 1-10, MICKEY JORDAN, CHERRY LINDAMOOD, and LEIGH STAGGS, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is a pro se prisoner's complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 31, 2018, the Court entered a memorandum opinion and an order that screened Plaintiff's complaint and dismissed the claims therein arising out of the alleged attack on Plaintiff as time-barred [Docs. 5 and 6]. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for relief from this dismissal under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 7] in which Plaintiff asserts that his claims arising out of the attack are not time-barred, as he filed the complaint within a year of exhausting his administrative remedies as to those claims.

         For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for Rule 60(b) relief [Doc. 7] will be GRANTED in part only to the extent that the Court will CORRECT its memorandum opinion [Doc. 5] to reflect that the claims for which Plaintiff was exhausting his administrative remedies in the year prior to filing his complaint are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) (providing that a district court may correct a mistake arising from an oversight in a judgment or order whenever one is found). The Court will further CORRECT its memorandum opinion [Id.] to reflect that all of Plaintiff's claims against the John Doe Defendants are time- barred due to Plaintiff's failure to amend the complaint to name them individually prior to expiration of the statute of limitations. Id. The Court will also CORRECT its memorandum opinion [Id.] to reflect that Plaintiff's claims that Defendants Phillips and Jordan failed to intervene in the alleged attack fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. Id. The remainder of the Court's memorandum opinion [Id.] will remain unchanged.

         The Court previously summarized Plaintiff's complaint in relevant part as follows:

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on April 13, 2016, the following events occurred:
(1) various John Doe Defendants attacked and injured Plaintiff;
(2) one or more John Doe Defendants placed Plaintiff in isolation without toiletries, bedroll, or bed linen;
(3) one or more John Doe Defendants denied Plaintiff the ability to get medical attention for the injuries resulting from the attack;
(4) one or more John Doe Defendants cut off Plaintiff's blood-soaked clothes to conceal evidence of the attack;
(5) one or more John Doe Defendants denied Plaintiff dinner; and
(6) one or more John Doe Defendants failed to intervene in the physical assault.
[Doc. 2 at 8-9; Doc. 2-1 at 2-3]. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Phillips failed to train officers to file proper incident reports, that Defendant Jordan failed to take corrective action after learning of and watching Defendant John Does' attack on Plaintiff, Defendants Staggs and Lindamood denied Plaintiff an impartial and adequate grievance procedure, and that Defendants Phillips and Jordan failed to intervene in the physical assault on Plaintiff [Id.].

[Id. at 3]. While the Court originally dismissed Plaintiff's claims arising out of the alleged attack as time-barred due to Plaintiff filing his complaint more than one year after the alleged attack [Id. at 4], Plaintiff correctly asserts in his motion for relief from this dismissal that the statute of limitations for prisoner § 1983 claims is tolled during the time in which the prisoner is exhausting his administrative remedies. Brown v. Morgan, 209 F.3d 595, 596 (6th Cir. 2000). Thus, as Plaintiff filed his complaint within one year of exhausting his administrative remedies as to some claims arising out of the alleged attack, his complaint is not time-barred as to those claims.

         As set forth in the Court's previously-entered memorandum opinion, however, the applicable statute of limitations for Plaintiff's claims is one year [Id. at 4]. Further, it is apparent from the documents filed with the complaint that Plaintiff's final appeal of his grievance regarding some of the events in his complaint was denied on September 1, 2016 [Doc. 2 p. 6]. Thus, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.