Case: 17-10764 Date Filed: 08/31/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10764
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-24154-CMA
ALPHONSO L. LEE, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA,
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA,
Jeffrey Rosinek,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 31, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-10764 Date Filed: 08/31/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Alphonso Lee, Jr., a Florida Prisoner, appeals pro se and in forma pauperis
the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On appeal, he argues that the district court erred by
dismissing his case as time-barred because the statute of limitations should have
been tolled due to a continuing violation of his rights.
We review de novo a district court's sua sponte dismissal for failure to state
a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110
(11th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to § 1915A, district courts are required to screen civil
complaints filed by prisoners against governmental entities or employees, and
dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A similar provision appears in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for in forma pauperis complaints. Pro se pleadings are held to a
less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an attorney and are liberally
construed. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
Although we show leniency to pro se litigants, we will not rewrite a deficient
pleading in order to sustain an action. Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d
1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014).
We also review questions concerning the application of a statute of
limitations de novo. Harrison v. Digital Health Plan, 183 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th
2
Case: 17-10764 Date Filed: 08/31/2017 Page: 3 of 4
Cir. 1999). Because § 1983 does not have a statute of limitations of its own,
statute of limitations issues are governed by the forum state’s general personal
injury statute of limitations in each case. Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d
1175, 1188 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-250
(1989)). Florida’s four-year statute of limitations therefore applies to § 1983
claims arising in Florida. Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003).
The statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should know
that they have suffered the injury that is the basis of the complaint, and knows or
should know who inflicted the injury. Id.
The continuing violation doctrine allows a plaintiff to sue on an otherwise
time-barred claim when additional violations of the law occur within the statutory
period. Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11th Cir.
2006). We have distinguished between the continuing effects of a discrete
violation, which do not extend the limitations period, and the continuation of a
violation itself, which does extend the time period. Id. at 1335. Furthermore, we
have limited the continuing violation doctrine to situations in which a reasonably
prudent plaintiff would have been unable to determine that a violation occurred.
Id. If an event should have alerted a reasonable plaintiff to assert his rights, then
the plaintiff cannot rely on the continuing violation doctrine. Id.
3
Case: 17-10764 Date Filed: 08/31/2017 Page: 4 of 4
The district court correctly determined that Lee’s claim was time-barred
because he filed it far outside of the applicable four-year statute of limitations. See
Chappell, 340 F.3d at 1283. The continuing violation doctrine did not apply
because his claim dealt with the continuing effects of one violation rather than
continued violations, and because a reasonably prudent plaintiff would have been
aware that the alleged violation occurred within the statute of limitations. See
Hamilton, 453 F.3d at 1335. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal
of Lee’s complaint.
AFFIRMED.
4