WILLIE ARTHUR SCULLOCK, II, APPELLANT,
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF DAVID GEE AND DEPUTY JOSEPH AKOS, 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.
Willie Scullock appealed the dismissal of his false arrest civil suit against Hillsborough County Sheriff's deputies. The court reversed, holding that Scullock timely filed his complaint within the four-year statute of limitations by applying the mailbox rule for pro se inmates, which applies equally to civil proceedings.
Scullock's complaint was timely filed. The mailbox rule, which measures timeliness from when a pro se inmate places a document in an official's hands for mailing, applies to civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. The unrebutted certificate of service created a rebuttable presumption that the complaint was placed in official hands on April 6, 2011, bringing it within the statute of limitations deadline of April 11, 2011.
[1] A cause of action for false arrest accrues on the day of the arrest.
[2] The statute of limitations for actions based on false arrest is four years.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under the so-called mailbox rule, the timeliness of a pro se inmate's pleading is measured from the date the inmate places the document in the hands of the prison (or jail) official for mailing.”
Establishes the foundational rule that allows Scullock to claim an earlier filing date based on when he gave the document to jail officials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScullock was arrested on April 9, 2007. While in jail on April 6, 2011, Scullock prepared a complaint alleging false arrest and had it notarized by a …
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 Mailbox Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Willie Sculloek appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his civil action alleging false arrest by a sheriffs deputy. We reverse.
Scullock’s suit was based on an allegedly false arrest that occurred on April 9, 2007. A cause of action for false arrest accrues on the day of the arrest. Leatherwood v. City of Key West, 347 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (citing Gordon v. City of Belle Glade, 132 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)). The statute of limitations for actions based on false arrest is four years. § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat. (2010). Measuring from the date of the arrest, the four-year period ended on April 9, 2011, which was a Saturday. Thus, the statute of limitations for this suit would have expired on Monday, April 11, 2011. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(a); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(a)(1)(C).
Scullock’s complaint was filed on April 12, 2011, but the certificate of service was dated April 6, 2011. Sculloek was in jail *1209on that date, and the complaint was notarized by a Hillsborough County deputy on that date. Under the so-called mailbox rule, the timeliness of a pro se inmate’s pleading is measured from the date the inmate places the document in the hands of the prison (or jail) official for mailing. Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992) (citing United States Supreme Court’s adoption of mailbox rule in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988)). A pro se inmate’s certificate of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the document was placed in the official’s hands on that date. Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324, 325 (Fla.2000). According to the unrebutted certificate of service in this case, Scullock’s complaint is deemed to have been filed on April 6, 2011. It was therefore timely, and the circuit court erred by dismissing the action based on the statute of limitations.
The Sheriff argues that Scullock’s reliance on the mailbox rule is unavailing because this is a civil proceeding. But he cites no authority for this proposition, and we have found no cases limiting the mailbox rule to criminal proceedings. To the contrary, this court and the Florida Supreme Court have applied the rule in a variety of civil contexts. See Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla.2002) (mailbox rule applied to filing of notice of appeal from dismissal of civil rights suit); Ross v. Ross, 93 So.3d 495, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (applying mailbox rule to service of pro se inmate’s motion for rehearing and for amendment of final judgment of dissolution of marriage); Wimbush v. Pasco Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 829 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (rule applied to prisoner’s motion for rehearing directed to dismissal of his replevin action); Martin v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Martin, 827 So.2d 367, 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (rule applied to prisoner’s petition for administrative hearing in proceeding for nonpayment of child support).
Scullock timely filed his lawsuit within the statute of limitations. We therefore reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scullock v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff David GEE, 161 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…limitations expired. However, Scullock was in jail at the time. According to the certificate of service, he delivered the complaint to the jail officials on May 12, 2011. As explained in more detail in the companion case, Scullock v. Gee, 2D12-3976, 133 So. 3d 1208, 2014 WL 962067 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 12, 2014), under the mailbox rule the complaint was deemed filed when Scullock gave it to the jail authorities for mailing. See Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. [*423] 2000). Therefore, the complaint was time…
-
IN the Interest OF D.P., III v. K.P., 228 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…and the docket attached to the record does not list it. The Birth Mother did not attach a copy of it to the motion for extension of time. . We note that the mailbox rule for prisoners applies to civil as well as criminal cases. See Scullock v. Gee, 133 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2002) ("Under the mailbox rule, a notice is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison. authorities for mailing.”). In light of. the mailbox rule and the Birth Mothe…
-
Kerr v. State, 148 So. 3d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…service and the actual filing date of the amended motion. Under the prisoner mailbox rule, the timeliness of Kerr’s pleading should be measured from the date he placed the document in the hands of prison officials for mailing. See Scullock v. Gee, 133 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992)). The date on the certificate of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the motion was actually placed in an official’s hands on that date. Id. (citing Thompson v. Stat…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988)
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000)
- Griffin v. D.R. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2002)
- Gordon v. City OF Belle Glade, 132 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Leatherwood v. The City OF KEY W., 347 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Martin v. Dep't OF Revenue ex rel. Nancy Martin, 827 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Wimbush v. Pasco Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 829 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Ross v. Ross, 93 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)