Sulik v. Taney County, Mo.

• Decision Date: 04 January 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-1340.,04-1340.
• Citation: Sulik v. Taney County, Mo., 393 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2005)
• 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

393 F.3d 765

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.

No. 04-1340.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 16, 2004.

Filed: January 4, 2005.

Appellant appeared pro se.

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.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

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.SeeFed. 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.SeeSulik 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 defendantsTaney County SheriffTheron 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 defendantLeslie Clemens for lack of state action, and against defendantsTaney 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.SeeArizona v. California,460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318(1983)(law of case doctrine posits "when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case").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.SeeLittle Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.,807 F.2d 1433, 1441(8th Cir.1986)(law-of-case doctrine does not apply when prior decision is "clearly erroneous and works manifest injustice");see alsoZdanok v. Glidden Co.,327 F.2d 944, 952-53(2d Cir.)(good sense exception to law-of-case doctrine includes "clear conviction of error on a point of law that is certain to recur"), 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.SeeWilson v. Garcia,471 U.S. 261, 276, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254(1985)(§ 1983 actions should be characterized as personal injury claims for purpose of applying appropriate state statute of limitations);Farmer v. Cook,782 F.2d 780, 780(8th Cir.1986)(per curiam)(§ 1983 claims brought in Missouri were subject to 5-year statute of limitations).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 court for reinstatement of these claims.

We affirm the dismissal of the other individual defen...