John Niesen v. City of Clearwater

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 17, 2011
No. 10-12383
JOHN LEY
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 8:08-cv-01599-JSM-EAJ
JOHN NIESEN, as Personal Representative
for the Estate of Michael Scott Niesen, deceased,
individually and as personal representative for the
Estate of Mary F. Riley,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF CLEARWATER, a
municipal corporation,
MICHAEL EGGER,
MARK CAIRNS,
EDWARD GARNER,
JAMES GRAVELY,
CHARLES BUTLER,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
(May 17, 2011)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, HILL and EBEL,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant John Niesen, acting as the personal representative for the
estate of his deceased brother, Michael Scott Niesen, brought this action in 2008
against Defendants-Appellees the City of Clearwater and a number of its police
officers alleging that his brother’s death following a vehicular accident in 1977
(thirty-one years before this suit was filed) was the result of a brutal beating by
those officers. Niesen brought several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that Clearwater and the police officers involved engaged in a conspiracy to cover
up the true circumstances surrounding his brother’s death. On May 6, 2010, the
district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on the grounds
that Neisen’s cause of action was precluded by Florida’s four-year statute of
limitations. Niesen now appeals, claiming that due to the conspiracy his cause of
action did not accrue until 2006, making his 2008 action timely.
I.
On July 13, 1977, John Niesen’s brother, Michael Niesen, was stopped by
Officer Ronald Mahony for speeding. Mahoney believed that the truck Niesen
*
Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2
was driving was stolen. Niesen then attempted to flee the scene at a high rate of
speed. Mahony dove into the bed of the pick-up truck and may have fired into the
cab in an attempt to stop Niesen. Niesen lost control of the truck, which went off
the side of the road and flipped over. Both Mahony and Niesen were ejected from
the vehicle. Mahony was fatally injured; Niesen was taken to the hospital but
never regained consciousness and died the next day.
The police and the city of Clearwater maintain that Niesen’s fatal injuries
were caused by the accident. Statements made by some of the witnesses at the
scene support the official version of events. According to John Niesen,
however, the day after the accident, a group of teenagers told him that they
witnessed the police officers at the scene violently assault his brother. With this
information, Neisen began what has been a thirty-year effort to uncover the facts
about his brother’s death. But he did not file suit.
By his count, Niesen claims to have discovered seventeen witnesses who
saw Michael Niesen alert, conscious, and coherent at the scene. He claims a
number of those witnesses saw his brother beaten by the police until he was
unconscious. These witnesses are said to include paramedics who were involved
in treating Neisen.
3
In 2002, John Niesen wrote a seven-page letter to then Senator Zell Miller
of Georgia in which he claimed that police officers beat his brother until he was
unconscious. This letter sets forth most of the facts now alleged in Neisen’s
complaint.
Despite his knowledge of these alleged facts, Neisen did not file a
complaint at that time. In 2006, Niesen interviewed John Garner, a rookie police
officer on his first night on the job when Michael Niesen was killed, who told
John Niesen that he spoke to his brother at the scene of the accident. Michael
Niesen told Garner that he thought he was OK and was in no discomfort, at which
point Garner went to help Officer Mahony. While Garner did not witness any
officers beating Niesen, he told John Niesen that the massive head wounds that led
to Niesen’s death were not present when he spoke to his brother. Garner also
stated that police reports claiming Niesen was unconscious when the police
arrived were “a total lie,” and that he was shocked to learn that Niesen had died.
Garner told Niesen that after the accident, the officers involved in responding to
the accident were gathered in a room by their supervisors. On a chalkboard were a
list of items to be included in each officer’s report. Garner stated that the officers
were to have their story straight, including that Niesen never regained
4
consciousness. With Garner’s statement in hand, John Niesen finally filed his
complaint in 2008, thirty-one years after the incident in question.
II.
According to Niesen, he accumulated an abundance of evidence that his
brother was beaten to death by the Clearwater police and that a conspiracy was
concocted to cover up that fact. Of course, Niesen’s evidence is contradicted, but
it certainly creates a question of fact that, if the case had been timely-filed, a jury
would have decided.
But it is clear that Niesen’s cause of action has long been barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. Our case law does not require that the plaintiff
have a perfect case or even a good case before the statute of limitations begins to
run on his cause of action. Rather, “Section 1983 actions do not accrue until the
plaintiff knows or has reason to know that he has been injured. Nor will a Section
1983 action accrue until the plaintiff is aware or should have been aware who has
inflicted the injury.” Mullinax v. McElhenney, 817 F.2d 711, 716 (11th Cir. 1987).
Niesen had that information as early as the day after the accident in 1977 and no
later than 2002 and the statute of limitations had run at least two years prior to the
filing of his lawsuit.
5
The statute of limitations doctrine is a harsh one, and by definition it bars
suits that may be meritorious. But it serves an important function and is “designed
to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have
been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and
witnesses have disappeared. The theory is that even if one has a just claim it is
unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation
and that the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right
to prosecute them.” Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 321
U.S. 342, 348–49, 64 S. Ct. 582, 586 (1944). This case may well be a tragic one,
but the time limit for a civil action passed long ago. Accordingly, we conclude
summary judgment was properly granted as to all Appellees.
AFFIRMED.
6