From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

RUTLEDGE v. TEW

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Jun 18, 2007
CASE NO. 2:07-cv-477-WKW (M.D. Ala. Jun. 18, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:07-cv-477-WKW.

June 18, 2007


ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION


On June 13, 2007, plaintiff Jonathan Louis Rutledge ("Rutledge") filed a response/objection (Doc. # 6) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on June 4, 2007 (Doc. #5), in which he argues that the tolling provision entitles him to tolling of the limitation period. However, as noted in the Recommendation, the statutory tolling provision applicable to Section 1983 actions was rescinded by the Alabama legislature in May of 1996. No other tolling provision applies to this case. Rutledge appears to rely on the tolling provision applicable to Rule 32 petitions for jurisdictional claims, but this provision provides no basis for relief from the limitation period applicable to Section 1983 cases. Rutledge also fails to assert any exceptional circumstances which would warrant equitable tolling of the limitation period. Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) (A federal limitation period "may be equitably tolled" when a plaintiff "untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable with diligence."); Arce v. Garcia, 434 F.3d 1254, 1261 (11th Cir. 2006) ("The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that such extraordinary circumstances exist.") In determining whether a plaintiff meets this burden, we must keep in mind that "[equitable] tolling is an extraordinary remedy which should be extended only sparingly." Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474, 1479 (11th Cir. 1993) (Citing Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 457-58, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990).

In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's objection is due to be overruled and the Recommendation adopted.

Conclusion

It is ORDERED that:

1. The Objection (Doc. #6) is OVERRULED;

2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 5) is ADOPTED;

3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I);

An appropriate judgment will be entered.


Summaries of

RUTLEDGE v. TEW

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Jun 18, 2007
CASE NO. 2:07-cv-477-WKW (M.D. Ala. Jun. 18, 2007)
Case details for

RUTLEDGE v. TEW

Case Details

Full title:JONATHAN LOUIS RUTLEDGE, AIS #242525, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH TEW, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

Date published: Jun 18, 2007

Citations

CASE NO. 2:07-cv-477-WKW (M.D. Ala. Jun. 18, 2007)

Citing Cases

Searcy v. Culliver

Plaintiff has not alleged exceptional circumstances that might warrant equitable tolling of the limitations…

Prescott v. Wolff

An untimely section 1983 claim is properly dismissed when the plaintiff fails to assert exceptional…