Calhoun #379175 v. Millen et al, No. 1:2010cv00982 - Document 6 (W.D. Mich. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

Download PDF
Calhoun #379175 v. Millen et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SAMUEL EUGENE CALHOUN, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:10-cv-982 v. Honorable Gordon J. Quist JAMES R. MILLEN, JR. et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO . 104-134, 110 STAT . 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. The Court must read Plaintiff s pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff s allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff s action will be dismissed as frivolous because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Dockets.Justia.com Factual Allegations Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Carson City Correctional Facility pursuant to a life sentence imposed by the Berrien County Circuit Court on September 17, 2001. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff sues Officer James R. Millen, Jr. of the City of Niles Police Department and the City of Niles. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Millen arrested him on July 14, 2000, pursuant to a warrant issued by the West Valley, Utah police department for vehicle theft. At the time of his arrest, Defendant Millen did not show Plaintiff the warrant or check Plaintiff s identification. After he arrived at the police station, Plaintiff learned that the Utah warrant was issued for a person named Samuel Eugene Saffell. Plaintiff claims that he produced identification showing that his name was Samuel Eugene Calhoun not Samuel Eugene Saffell, but Defendant refused to release him. Following a preliminary examination on July 25, 2010, the district court found that while there was a question as to Plaintiff s identity, there was sufficient evidence to bind him over on the charge of larceny by conversion over $20,000. The prosecutor later dropped the charge after Plaintiff was convicted of the offense for which he currently is serving a life sentence. Plaintiff asserts claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. He also alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Discussion State statutes of limitations and tolling principles apply to determine the timeliness of claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 268-69 (1985). For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years. See MICH . COMP . LAWS § 600.5805(10); Carroll v. Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44, 44 (6th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Stafford v. Vaughn, No. 97-2239, 1999 WL 96990, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 1999). Accrual of the -2- claim for relief, however, is a question of federal law. Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 220 (6th Cir. 1996); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 272 (6th Cir. 1984). The statute of limitations begins to run when the aggrieved party knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of his action. Collyer, 98 F.3d at 220.1 Plaintiff asserts claims arising from his alleged false arrest in 2000. Plaintiff had reason to know of the harms done to him at the time they occurred. Hence, his claims accrued in 2000. However, he did not file his complaint until 2010, well past Michigan s three-year limit. Moreover, Michigan law no longer tolls the running of the statute of limitations when a plaintiff is incarcerated. See MICH . COMP . LAWS § 600.5851(9). Further, it is well established that ignorance of the law does not warrant equitable tolling of a statute of limitations. See Rose v. Dole, 945 F.2d 1331, 1335 (6th Cir. 1991); Jones v. Gen. Motors Corp., 939 F.2d 380, 385 (6th Cir. 1991); Mason v. Dep t of Justice, No. 01-5701, 2002 WL 1334756, at *2 (6th Cir. June 17, 2002). A complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint does not present a rational basis in law if it is time-barred by the appropriate statute of limitations. The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly held that when a meritorious affirmative defense based upon the applicable statute of limitations is obvious from the face of the complaint, sua sponte dismissal of the complaint is appropriate. See Dellis v. Corrections Corp. of America, 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001); Beach v. Ohio, No. 033187, 2003 WL 22416912, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2003); Castillo v. Grogan, No. 02-5294, 2002 1 28 U.S.C. § 1658 created a catch-all limitations period of four years for civil actions arising under federal statute enacted after December 1, 1990. The Supreme Court s decision in Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004), which applied this federal four-year limitations period to a suit alleging racial discrimination under § 1981 does not apply to prisoner claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 because, while § 1983 was amended in 1996, prisoner civil rights actions under § 1983 were not made possible by the amended statute. Id. at 382. -3- WL 31780936, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2002); Duff v. Yount, No. 02-5250, 2002 WL 31388756, at *1-2 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2002); Paige v. Pandya, No. 00-1325, 2000 WL 1828653 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2000). Accordingly, Plaintiff s action must be dismissed as frivolous. Conclusion Having conducted the review now required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff s action will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $455.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the three-strikes rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $455.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered. Dated: November 19, 2010 /s/ Gordon J. Quist GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.