Davis v. Williams ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    JAMES T. DAVIS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    DONALD E. WILLIAMS,
    Commissioner, Department of
    Motor Vehicles for the
    Commonwealth of Virginia, in his
    individual and official capacity;
    DAN W. BYERS, Administrator,
    Motorist Licensing, Commonwealth
    of Virginia, Department of Motor
    Vehicles, in his official capacity;
    HARVIE L. FOWLKES, JR., Clerk,
    No. 94-1940
    General District Court for the City
    of Petersburg, Commonwealth of
    Virginia, in his individual and
    official capacity; EDITH WINTERS,
    Clerk, General District Court for the
    City of Hopewell, Commonwealth
    of Virginia, in her individual and
    official capacity; DONNA W.
    BROCKWELL, Clerk, General District
    Court for the County of Dinwiddie,
    Commonwealth of Virginia, in her
    individual and official capacity,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CA-93-802-R)
    Submitted: March 19, 1996
    Decided: April 3, 1996
    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
    and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    James T. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Robert Messitt, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellees.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    James T. Davis filed a 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (1988) complaint on
    December 3, 1993, raising several constitutional violations resulting
    from suspensions of his driver's license by the Virginia Department
    of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") between 1986 and 1993 for failure to pay
    the fines imposed for violations of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code.
    After a hearing, the district court granted the Defendants' summary
    judgment motion for the reasons stated from the bench. Finding no
    reversible error, we affirm.
    Davis' challenge to the DMV suspensions of his license between
    1986 and 1990 was barred by Virginia's two-year statute of limita-
    tions for personal injury actions. See 
    Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243
    (A)
    2
    (Michie 1992); see Wilson v. Garcia, 
    471 U.S. 261
    , 280 (1985) (hold-
    ing that federal courts apply state statutes of limitation in § 1983
    actions). With regard to the 1993 suspension, the district court prop-
    erly denied relief on Davis' due process claim that his license was
    suspended without notice because it was barred by the doctrine of col-
    lateral estoppel. See Angstadt v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 
    457 S.E.2d 86
    ,
    87 (Va. 1995). And Davis was not entitled to a hearing under 
    Va. Code Ann. §§ 46.2-402
     to -407 (Michie 1994), because his license
    was suspended under 
    Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-395
     (Michie 1994),
    which does not require a hearing. Davis' claim that the fee to reinstate
    his license was an additional punishment that violated the Double
    Jeopardy Clause also failed because the purpose of suspending or
    revoking licenses is for the protection of the public by removing dan-
    gerous drivers from Virginia roadways. See Huffman v. Virginia, 
    172 S.E.2d 788
    , 789 (Va. 1970). Finally, the district court properly denied
    relief on Davis' claim that he received ineffective assistance of coun-
    sel. See Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv. , 
    785 F.2d 1236
    , 1237
    (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that there is no right to effective assistance
    of counsel in civil cases).
    Because the district court properly granted summary judgment on
    Davis' claims, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 
    477 U.S. 242
    ,
    248-49 (1986), we grant Davis leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
    affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
    and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 94-1940

Filed Date: 4/3/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021