ORAN L. TURNER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID C. EVANS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION; D.E. ENGLAND, WARDEN, GEORGIA INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE, ALTO, GEORGIA; CAPTAIN MOODY, CORRECTIONS OFFICER, GEORGIA INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE, ALTO, GEORGIA; MR. MCNEIL, CORRECTIONS OFFICER, GEORGIA INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE, ALTO, GEORGIA; MR. SIMMONS, GEORGIA INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE, ALTO, GEORGIA; MR. GARMON, GEORGIA INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE, ALTO, GEORGIA; MR. COLE, GEORGIA INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE, ALTO, GEORGIA; MR. COOK, GEORGIA INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE, ALTO, GEORGIA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90 tolls the statute of limitations for persons who are imprisoned at the time a cause of action arises.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the Supreme Court of Georgia regarding whether O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90 tolls the statute of li…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tolling cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Finding that this matter presented an important issue of Georgia law on which' there was no clear, controlling precedent, we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia:1
Does Georgia law require a person confined (in a jail or prison) at the time a cause of action arises to file suit within the applicable statutory limitation period or does O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90 (Ga.Code § 3-801) toll the statute of limitations?
The response to our question is attached.2 We are grateful to the Supreme Court of Georgia for its cooperation and assistance.
Since the law of Georgia is now clear, the dismissal entered by the district court is reversed. The provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9— 3-90 control and toll the statute of limitations for persons who are imprisoned.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
APPENDIX
39967. Oran L. Turner v. David C. Evans, et al.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Decided: Sept. 21, 1983.
BELL, Justice.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has certified the fol lowing question to this court: “Does Georgia law require a person confined (in a jail or prison) at the time a cause of action arises to file suit within the applicable statutory limitation period or does O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90 (Ga.Code § 3-801) toll the statute of limitations?”
APPENDIX — Continued
Our Court of Appeals has previously addressed this issue in Maddox v. Hall County, 162 Ga.App. 371(1), 291 S.E. 2d 442 (1982). In that case, the court noted that the doctrine of civiliter mortuus is not the law of this state and that prisoners thus may sue or be sued. Dade Coal Co. v. Haslett, 83 Ga. 549(1), 10 S.E. 435 (1889); Scott v. Scott, 192 Ga. 370(1), 15 S.E. 2d 416 (1941). It then held that even though the reasons for tolling the statute of limitations for persons imprisoned may have disappeared along with that doctrine, the tolling provision of OCGA § 9-3-90 for prisoners is still valid law, with the authority to repeal it residing solely with the legislature. 162 Ga.App. at 372, 291 S.E. 2d 442. We agree with the Georgia Court of Appeals, and therefore hold that OCGA § 9-3-90 tolls the statute of limitations for persons who are imprisoned.
Certified Question Answered.
All the Justices concur. . Turner v. Evans, 704 F. 2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983).
. Turner v. Evans, 251 Ga. 486, 306 S.E. 2d 921 (1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1989)…essary); Stephan v. Dowdle, 733 F. 2d 642 (CA9 1984) (mentioning Tomauio and state-court interpretation of state law, overrules Circuit precedent and holds Arizona’s tolling provision applies to inmates' actions pursuant to S 1983); Turner v. Evans, 721 F. 2d 341 (CA11 1983) (per curiam) (without discussing Tomauio, applies Georgia tolling provision); May v. Enomoto, 633 F. 2d 164 (CA9 1980) (citing pre-Tomauio Circuit precedent, gives effect to California's tolling statute); Miller v. Smith, 625 F. 2d 43 (C…
-
Hawthorne v. Mr. Wells, 761 F.2d 1514 (11th Cir. 1985)…be seriously impaired by the loss of evidence.” Kubrick, 444 U.S. at 117, 100 S.Ct. at 356.9 Hence, it is appropriate for the tolling statute to apply to federal actions brought by Georgia prisoners against Georgia prison officials. Turner v. Evans, 721 F. 2d 341 (11th Cir.1983). However, application of that tolling statute to Bivens actions brought by federal prisoners against federal prison officials is inconsistent with the policy underlying Bivens actions and the federal policy of repose. In such instanc…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Oran L. Turner v. Evans, 704 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir. 1983)