Sulik v. Taney County, Mo.
Decision Date | 04 January 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 04-1340.,04-1340. |
Citation | 393 F.3d 765 |
Parties | Ronald C. SULIK, Appellant, v. TANEY COUNTY, MISSOURI; Theron Jenkins; Dalton; Jim Justice; Alan Hahn; Tony Stephens; Barney Naotie; Ken Carlson; Denise Bishop; Michele Johnson; Michael G. Clemens; Leslie Clemens; Frank Miller, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Patricia A. Keck and Craig R. Carter, Springfield, MO; and David DeGreeff and Amber VanHauen, Kansas City, MO, for appellees.
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Ronald C. Sulik, a Missouri prisoner, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against numerous Taney County and City of Branson officials, claiming violations of his constitutional rights based on events relating to his assault in the Taney County jail. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely filed, and we reversed after concluding Sulik's complaint was timely filed when he placed it in the prison mail. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1) (prison mailbox rule). We thus remanded for reinstatement of the claims against all defendants except for the police officers, reasoning claims against the police officers were governed by a three-year statute of limitations and remained untimely even if the prison mailbox rule was applied, and claims against all other defendants were timely because Sulik delivered his section 1983 complaint to prison authorities within the five-year statute of limitations. See Sulik v. Taney County, Mo., 316 F.3d 813, 814-16 (8th Cir.2003) (hereinafter Sulik I).
On remand, the district court expressed doubt about our statute of limitations ruling but concluded it was bound by this law of the case. Thus, based on Sulik I's holding the claims against the police officers were untimely, the district court dismissed defendants Taney County Sheriff Theron Jenkins; Taney County jail employees Allan Hahn, Denise Bishop, Michelle Johnson, Michael Clemens, Frank Miller, Ken Carlson, and Tony Stephens; and City of Branson detective Steve Dalton. The district court also dismissed the claims against defendant Leslie Clemens for lack of state action, and against defendants Taney County prosecutors Barney Naotie and Jim Justice based on prosecutorial immunity. Sulik appeals, asking this court to revisit — as contrary to precedent — its holding in Sulik I on the issue of the three-year limitations period.
Ordinarily, the legal holding in Sulik I of Missouri's three-year statute of limitations applying to the claims against the police officers would be the "law of the case" and would prevent relitigation of the issue. See Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) ( ). However, we are not bound to follow the law of the case when the earlier panel opinion contains a clear error on a point of law and works a manifest injustice. See Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 807 F.2d 1433, 1441 (8th Cir.1986) ( ); see also Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 952-53 (2d Cir.) (, )cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 1338, 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
Our holding in Sulik I applying a three-year statute of limitations to the claims against the police officers was a clear error of law, and letting it stand would work a manifest injustice. We therefore overrule Sulik I on this point of law. Missouri's five-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 516.120(4) (2000), applies to all of Sulik's section 1983 claims. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985) ( ); Farmer v. Cook, 782 F.2d 780, 780 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam) ( ). Accordingly, the claims against the defendant officers — i.e., Jenkins, Hahn, Bishop, Johnson, Michael Clemens, Miller, Carlson, Stephens, and Dalton — were timely filed, and we remand to the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cotton v. Stephens
...469 F.3d 1216, 1217 (8th Cir. 2006); see Sulik v. Taney Cty., 316 F.3d 813, 814-15 (8th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds, 393 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2005) (determining that the prison mailbox rule provides that, if an inmate confined in an institution files a civil complaint, the complain......
-
Dowell v. Lincoln Cnty.
...governed by Missouri's five-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. SeeMo.Rev.Stat. § 516.120(4); Sulik v. Taney Cnty., Mo., 393 F.3d 765, 767 (8th Cir.2005). Unlawful search claims are presumed to have accrued when the search occurred, unless plaintiff presents a reason for......
-
Shuler v. Arnott
...[5] Asking this Court to revisit its prior dismissal of certain counts within Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs argue, “As in Sulik, Shulers filed their assault and battery claims under 1983, meaning it has a five-year SOL.” (Doc. 212 at para 112) (citing Sulik v. Taney Cnty.......
-
Epp v. Frakes
...rule governs the determination of when a prisoner's civil complaint has been filed."), overruled on other grounds in later appeal, 393 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2005). The court now conducts an initial review of Epp's Amended Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...316 F.3d 813, 815 (8th Cir. 2003) (prison mailbox rule applied to pro se prisoners filing § 1983 claims), overruled on other grounds, 393 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2005); Hernandez v. Spearman, 764 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (prison mailbox rule applied when pro se prisoner gave habeas petit......