Summary
This federal district court order grants defendants' motion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim as untimely under Wisconsin's three-year statute of limitations. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments for equitable tolling based on delayed responses from a civilian police complaint board and the COVID-19 pandemic, finding he failed to demonstrate diligence or extraordinary circumstances preventing timely filing. Consequently, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel was denied as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Rose's Fourth Amendment claims arising from the October 23, 2020 traffic stop were barred by Wisconsin's three-year statute of limitations.
- Whether the filing of civilian complaints with the Milwaukee Police Department or Fire and Police Commission tolled the limitations period.
- Whether Rose established entitlement to equitable tolling based on the administrative complaint process, lack of the officers' names, lack of access to police records or the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Whether the complaint could be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) based on untimeliness.
Holdings
- Rose's Fourth Amendment claims accrued no later than October 23, 2020, were subject to Wisconsin's three-year limitations period, and were untimely because he did not file until April 3, 2024.
- Because the action concerned alleged police misconduct during a traffic stop rather than prison conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) did not require Rose to exhaust administrative remedies before filing, and his civilian complaints did not toll the limitations period.
- Rose was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not show both diligent pursuit of his rights and extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing.
- The court could resolve the timeliness issue on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting it to summary judgment because the relevant materials were within the pleadings or consistent with the complaint.
Key quotations
“The plaintiff needed only to generally allege in his complaint what happened—what he believed unknown officers did that violated his rights.” (Part III.B)
“The mere fact of the pandemic is not an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling.” (Part III.B)
“The court GRANTS the defendants’ motion to dismiss this case as untimely.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Rose alleged that Milwaukee police officers stopped him while he was driving on October 23, 2020, assaulted him, and left him with injuries requiring medical treatment. He filed civilian complaints with the Milwaukee Police Department and later contacted the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission, but he did not file his § 1983 action until April 3, 2024. Rose argued that the complaint process, lack of access to information and the COVID-19 pandemic warranted equitable tolling of the limitations period.
Procedural history
Rose filed the action on April 3, 2024, concerning an October 23, 2020 traffic stop. The court screened the amended complaint and permitted Fourth Amendment claims against Ayala and Hermann while dismissing other claims and defendants. The defendants then moved to dismiss as untimely, and the court concluded that Wisconsin's three-year limitations period had expired before filing and that equitable tolling was unavailable.