Earvin Ealy v. GEO Group, Inc.

Case: 14-14199 Date Filed: 06/30/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14199
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-00205-MP-CJK
EARVIN EALY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEO GROUP, INC.,
WARDEN,
PAYNE,
Health Service Administrator,
MCGINTY,
Classification Supervisor,
WOMBLE,
Nurse, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(June 30, 2016)
Case: 14-14199 Date Filed: 06/30/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Before MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and COOGLER, ∗ District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Earvin Ealy is a Florida prisoner incarcerated in a prison run by the GEO
Group. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to file a third amended
complaint in a lawsuit against the GEO Group and several of its employees. The
district court determined that it would be futile to allow Ealy to amend his asserted
claims related to the Rehabilitation Act because the statute of limitations for a
claim like that was one year under Florida Statutes § 95.11(5)(g). Ealy filed his
original complaint in July 2012, alleging claims based on events from 2008, 2009,
and 2010. In light of its denial of Ealy’s motion to amend, the district court
granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss his claims as time barred.
Ealy argues that a four-year limitations period should apply to his
Rehabilitation Act claims. We agree. When a federal statute like the
Rehabilitation Act does not provide a limitations period, “courts should look to the
most analogous state statute of limitations.” Everett v. Cobb Cty. Sch. Dist., 138
F.3d 1407, 1409 (11th Cir. 1998). Generally, the most analogous statute of
limitations for federal civil rights actions is the state’s limitations period for
personal injury actions. Id.
∗
Honorable L. Scott Coogler, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Alabama, sitting by designation.
2
Case: 14-14199 Date Filed: 06/30/2016 Page: 3 of 3
This Court has on several occasions applied the four-year residual
limitations period under Florida’s personal injury statute, Florida Statutes
§ 95.11(3)(p), to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. See, e.g., Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d
1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d
1175, 1188 (11th Cir. 1999). This four-year residual limitations period applies to
Ealy’s Rehabilitation Act claims here as well. Because § 95.11(3)(p) applies to
Ealy’s claims under the Rehabilitation Act, they are not clearly time-barred and his
proposed amendment would not be futile.1 This means the district court erred in
denying Ealy’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, and then dismissing his
claims. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
1
We decline to address Ealy’s remaining two claims, which were not presented before
the district court in Ealy’s second amended complaint or in any other filings with the court.
3