Hamlin v. Hutchinson et al, No. 3:2015cv00121 - Document 12 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 11/24/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )

Download PDF

Hamlin v. Hutchinson et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division PRESTON JOHN THOMAS HAMLIN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15CV121 OFFICER HUTCHINSON, et al.y Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Preston John Thomas Hamlin, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.l The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. I. PRELIMINARY REVIEW Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") this Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines the action (1) "is frivolous" or (2) "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The first standard includes claims based upon '"an indisputably meritless legal theory,'" or claims where the "'factual contentions are clearly baseless.'" Clay v. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Va. 1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). The second standard is 1The statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.... 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dockets.Justia.com the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). These standards permitthe Court to dismiss actions that are clearly barred by the statute of limitations. II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS In 2012, Defendants Hutchinson and Elkins, officers with the Petersburg Police Department, approached Plaintiff in the parking lot of "Valero's." (Compl. 2.) Defendants began harassing Plaintiff. Plaintiff ran away. Defendants caught Plaintiff, slammed him to the ground and "then took turns beating the plaintiff " (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force against his person. Plaintiff demands monetary damages and injunctive relief. III. ANALYIS Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss claims which the relevant statute of limitations clearly bars. Brown v. Harris, No. 3:10CV613, 2012 WL 12383, at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2012) (citing Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 655-57 (4th Cir. 2006); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House ofCorr., 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995)). Because no explicit statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions exists, the courts borrow the personal injury statute of limitations from the relevant state. Nasim, 64 F.3d at 955 (citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-69 (1985)). Virginia applies a two-year statute of limitations to personal injury claims. See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(A) (West 2015). Hence, Plaintiff should have filed his Complaint within two years from when the underlying claims accrued. "A claim accrues when the plaintiff becomes aware of his or her injury, United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. Ill, 123 (1979), or when he or she 'is put on notice ... to make reasonable inquiry' as to whether a claim exists." Almond v. Sisk, No. 3:08cvl38, 2009 WL 2424084, at *4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2009) (omission in original) (quoting Nasim, 64 F.3d at 955). Plaintiff executed his Complaint and presumably handed it to prison officials for mailing on February 13, 2015. (Compl. 4.) The Complaint is deemed filed for statute of limitation purposes as of that date. See Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep't, 947 F.2d 733, 736 (4th Cir. 1991) (concluding inmate's civil action was filed for statute of limitation purposes when handed to prison officials for mailing). Because Plaintiff failed to file his Complaint within two years from the accrual of his claim in 2012, the statute of limitations bars this action. IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs claims and the action will be DISMISSED. The Clerk will be DIRECTED to note the disposition of the action for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiffs Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 10) will be DENIED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ Date: »|^/l? Richmond, Virginia John A. Gibney; United States Judge

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.