Bell v. City of Baton Rouge

Fifth Circuit

Bell v. City of Baton Rouge

77 F. App'x 743

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 2003

Docket03-30148

StatusUnpublished

This text of 77 F. App'x 743 (Bell v. City of Baton Rouge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. City of Baton Rouge, 77 F. App'x 743 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jessie Jermaine Bell appeals the district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Bell contends that his lawsuit was not time-barred because he had been incarcerated for 10 months and did not consult with a private attorney about a possible lawsuit during that time. Louisiana does not have a tolling provision based on a plaintiff’s imprisonment. See Kissinger v. Foti 544 F.2d 1257, 1258 (5th Cir.1977). Furthermore, ignorance of the law does not toll the limitations period. See Groom v. Energy Corp. of Am., 650 So.2d 324, 326 (La.Ct.App.1995).

Bell further argues that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds violated the due process clause. Bell has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the legislature acted in an arbitrary and irrational manner. See Seoane v. Ortho Pharms., Inc., 660 F.2d 146, 151 (5th Cir.1981). The one-year prescriptive period for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint does not violate Bell’s due process rights. See Montagino v. Canale, 792 F.2d 554, 557-58 (5th Cir. 1986) (medical malpractice case); Wayne v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 730 F.2d 392, 404 (5th Cir.1984) (products liability case). The district court did not err in awarding summary judgment to the City of Baton Rouge and Smith.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Jessie Jermaine Bell appeals the district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Bell contends that his lawsuit was not time-barred because he had been incarcerated for 10 months and did not consult with a private attorney about a possible lawsuit during that time. Louisiana does not have a tolling provision based on a plaintiff’s imprisonment. See Kissinger v. Foti 544 F.2d 1257, 1258 (5th Cir.1977). Furthermore, ignorance of the law does not toll the limitations period. See Groom v. Energy Corp. of Am., 650 So.2d 324, 326 (La.Ct.App.1995).

Bell further argues that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds violated the due process clause. Bell has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the legislature acted in an arbitrary and irrational manner. See Seoane v. Ortho Pharms., Inc., 660 F.2d 146, 151 (5th Cir.1981). The one-year prescriptive period for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint does not violate Bell’s due process rights. See Montagino v. Canale, 792 F.2d 554, 557-58 (5th Cir. 1986) (medical malpractice case); Wayne v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 730 F.2d 392, 404 (5th Cir.1984) (products liability case). The district court did not err in awarding summary judgment to the City of Baton Rouge and Smith.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 F. App'x 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-city-of-baton-rouge-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack