Summary
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Charles Bozzo’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 procedural due process action against Michigan Department of Corrections officials. The court held that the claim was barred by Michigan’s three-year statute of limitations because it accrued no later than the conclusion of Bozzo’s arbitration hearing, and that statutory or equitable tolling did not apply. The court alternatively held that Bozzo received constitutionally adequate pre- and post-termination process and failed to state a plausible due process claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Bozzo's procedural due process claim was barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations.
- Whether Bozzo plausibly alleged that he was deprived of procedural due process in connection with his termination and post-termination arbitration.
- Whether the filing of Bozzo's first action, its dismissal without prejudice, or his asserted exhaustion of administrative remedies tolled the limitations period.
Holdings
- Bozzo's procedural due process claim accrued no later than December 17, 2020, when the alleged denial of post-termination process was complete, and his June 14, 2024 complaint was untimely under Michigan's three-year limitations period.
- Bozzo was not entitled to equitable tolling, and his asserted exhaustion of administrative remedies did not toll the limitations period.
- Bozzo received constitutionally adequate pre-termination process because MDOC provided written notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer's evidence and alleged rule violations, and an opportunity to respond.
- Bozzo received constitutionally adequate post-termination process through the arbitration procedure provided by his collective bargaining agreement.
Key quotations
“A “complete and present” “procedural due process claim” has two elements.” (at 4)
“A procedural due process claim is “complete” only once the “deprivation” and the State’s failure to “provide due process” have both occurred.” (at 5)
“Before termination, Bozzo must have had “some form of . . . hearing.”” (at 8)
“At a minimum,” Bozzo had to “be permitted to attend the hearing, to have the assistance of counsel, to call witnesses and produce evidence on his own behalf, and to know and have an opportunity to challenge the evidence against him.” (at 9)
Factual background
Charles Bozzo worked as a correctional officer for the Michigan Department of Corrections. After a coworker reported that he made lewd, obscene, and harassing comments, MDOC charged him with misconduct, held a disciplinary conference, and terminated him on July 31, 2019. Bozzo invoked arbitration under his collective bargaining agreement, attended a three-day hearing ending December 17, 2020, and received an adverse arbitration decision on March 1, 2021. He later sued MDOC employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the termination and related disciplinary and arbitration procedures violated procedural due process.
Procedural history
Bozzo initially filed a federal complaint on December 18, 2023, but the district court dismissed it without prejudice for failure to prosecute after he did not respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss. He refiled largely the same complaint on June 14, 2024. The district court again granted dismissal, concluding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that Bozzo had forfeited all constitutional theories except procedural due process, which was inadequately pleaded. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.