Flowers v. Dickens

• Decision Date: 25 May 1990
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. J89-0484 (L).
• Parties: Johnnie Earl FLOWERS, Plaintiff, v. Darrell DICKENS, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Supervisor of District II, Leake County, Mississippi; and Leake County, Mississippi, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

741 F. Supp. 112

Johnnie Earl FLOWERS, Plaintiff, v. Darrell DICKENS, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Supervisor of District II, Leake County, Mississippi; and Leake County, Mississippi, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. J89-0484 (L).

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.

May 25, 1990.

Elizabeth L. Gilchrist, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff.

Hubbard T. Saunders, IV, Crosthwait, Terney, Noble & Allain, Jackson, Miss., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TOM S. LEE, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Johnnie Earl Flowers, a former employee of Leake County, Mississippi, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants, Darrell Dickens and Leake County, Mississippi, alleging that his termination from employment was in violation of his first amendment rights. Presently before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has responded to the motion, and the court has considered the memoranda together with attachments submitted by the parties in ruling on the motion.

The sole issue presented by defendants' motion is whether plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The relevant facts are undisputed. Plaintiff was employed as a road hand for the Road District II Maintenance Department of Leake County in May of 1984 by James Murphy, then District II Supervisor of the county. In November 1987 defendant Dickens was elected to the District II Supervisor position. During the last week of December 1987, before assuming office, Dickens informed plaintiff that his employment with the county would end when Dickens took office on January 4, 1988. On January 5, 1988, Dickens met with plaintiff and officially terminated him from employment. Plaintiff filed the present suit on August 25, 1989.

At the time plaintiff was discharged, the applicable statute of limitations for section 1983 actions in Mississippi was the one-year statute for intentional torts, Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-35 (1972 & Supp.1989). See Gates v. Spinks, 771 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.1985). Under this statute, plaintiff's claim expired no later than January 5, 1989. However, on January 10, 1989, the United States Supreme Court decided Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989), holding that in states having both a statute of limitations for intentional torts and a residual statute of limitations, the residual statute is to be used for section 1983 claims. At the time Owens was decided, Mississippi's residual statute, Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (1972), provided a six-year limitations period.¹ Thus, the effect of Owens on section 1983 suits brought in Mississippi was to increase the statutory period from one to six years. While plaintiff's suit was filed approximately seven months after the one-year statute had expired, it was filed well within the new six-year limitations period. The question presented by defendants' motion is which of these statutory periods applies to plaintiff's claim, or, stated another way, whether Owens should be applied retroactively to the present suit.

As a general rule, the court is to apply to a case the law in effect at the time of the decision. Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 662, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 2621, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987) (citing Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 486 n. 16, 101 S.Ct. 2870, 2879, 69 L.Ed.2d 784 (1981)); see also Lavender v. V & B Transmissions & Auto Repair, 897 F.2d 805, 806-07 (5th Cir.1990); Carroll v. General Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 891 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir.1990). A corollary of this rule is the presumption that the holding of a case will be applied both prospectively and retroactively. Al-Khazraji v. Saint Francis College, 784 F.2d 505, 510 (3d Cir.1986), aff'd, 481 U.S. 604, 107 S.Ct. 2022, 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987). However, an exception may be made in certain cases. In Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), the Supreme Court identified three factors that suggest nonretroactive application of the holding of a particular case:

First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.... Second, it has been stressed that "we must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." ... Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for "where a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the `injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity."

Id. at 106-07, 92 S.Ct. at 355 (citations omitted). This analysis is appropriate for determining whether to apply retroactively decisions involving statutes of limitations.²See Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987); Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 107 S.Ct. 2022, 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987); Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 876 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir.1989); Baker v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., 850 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir.1988); Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556 (9th Cir.1987); Kimbrough v. Bowman Trans., Inc., 712 F.Supp. 883 (N.D.Ala.1989). While the Supreme Court has not specifically utilized the Chevron approach for situations in which the new statutory period would revive a claim that the litigants reasonably believed to have been barred, the Courts of Appeals for the First, Eighth and Ninth Circuits have done so, see Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d 194 (1st Cir.1987); Farmer v. Cook, 782 F.2d 780 (8th Cir.1986); Rivera v. Green, 775 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir.1985), as have the district courts of this state, see Johnson v. Madison County, Mississippi, 714 F.Supp. 805 (S.D.Miss.1989); Kozam v. Emerson Elec. Co., 711 F.Supp. 313 (N.D.Miss.1989).

Under Chevron, in order for a court to deny retroactive application of a particular decision, that decision must be one which either overrules clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied or decides an issue of first impression, the resolution of which was not clearly foreshadowed. Some cases imply that the state of the law at the time of the filing of the complaint is controlling. See, e.g., Goodman, 482 U.S. at 661-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2621-22. In the court's opinion, this furnishes the appropriate point of reference when the question involved is whether to apply a newly shortened statute of limitations retroactively. In such cases, the reliance interest advanced is that of the plaintiff in filing his complaint when he did. In cases like the present, though, where the limitations period is lengthened, the reliance interest advanced is that of defendants — their belief, as of one year from the date of plaintiff's termination, that any section 1983 claim plaintiff might have against them had expired. Thus, in the case at bar, the state of the law at the time plaintiff filed his complaint is irrelevant; what matters is whether the law at the time defendants allegedly relied upon it was well-settled such that their reliance would have been reasonable. So viewed, clear circuit precedent in effect at the time plaintiff's cause of action accrued provided that plaintiff had one year in which to assert his claim, Gates v. Spinks, 771 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.1985); that precedent was still in effect when the one-year period expired and for several days thereafter. This first Chevron factor, therefore, militates against retroactive application of the holding in Owens.³

The second consideration in determining whether a particular case should be excepted from the general rule of retroactivity is whether retroactive application will further the purposes of the rule in question. The goals of the rule announced in Owens are the advancement of the interests of uniformity, ease of application, predictability and the minimization of unnecessary litigation. The law in effect in this circuit prior to Owens was consistent with these objectives; Gates v. Spinks had settled the question of which state statute of limitations was to be applied to section 1983 actions. Consequently, application of the new six-year statutory period under Owens, as opposed to the one-year statutory period under Gates, would neither further nor retard the interests of ease of application and predictability. See Young v. Biggers, 816 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.1987) (Reavley, J., specially concurring) (interests advanced by Wilson have little import in decision of whether to apply new statutory period retroactively) (citing Al-Khazraji v. Saint Francis College, 784 F.2d 505 (3d Cir. 1986), aff'd, 481 U.S. 604, 107 S.Ct. 2022, 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987)), rev'd on rehearing en banc, 820 F.2d 727 (5th Cir.1987); Kozam v. Emerson Elec. Co., 711 F.Supp. 313, 317 (N.D.Miss.1989).⁴

Finally, a court confronted with the issue of retroactivity is to examine whether retroactive application would lead to a substantially inequitable or harsh result. This part of the Chevron analysis requires an examination of the particular circumstances of the parties before the court.⁵ In a case such as this, where the limitations period has been expanded by judicial decision, a determination that retroactive application of the longer statutory period should be denied is indicated if the defendants demonstrate that they relied to such an extent on a shorter statute under pre-Owens law that substantial inequity would result from retroactive application. See Lavender, 897 F.2d at 806-07 (plaintiffs' reliance not compelling enough to establish that retroactivity would be inequitable). In the case sub judice, defendants have not alleged that they relied in any way on the belief that plaintiff's...