We use cookies to better understand how you use our site and to improve your experience by personalizing content. Please review our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. If you accept the use of cookies, please click the "I accept" button.I acceptI declineX
Skip navigational links

Sixth Circuit Holds Pro Se Prisoner's Medical Malpractice Complaint Timely Filed When Given To Prison Authorities


HLD, v. 30, n. 7 (July 2002)

Sixth Circuit Holds Pro Se Prisoner's Medical Malpractice Complaint Timely Filed When Given To Prison Authorities

Plaintiff Joe J. Richard, a federal prisoner, was diagnosed with prostate cancer during his incarceration. He underwent prostate surgery at Samaritan Hospital (hospital) and alleged that he suffered rectal and bladder injury due to the surgeon's negligence in performing the surgery. He filed a complaint against the surgeon and the hospital, which the trial court dismissed as time-barred because it was stamped "filed" by the court clerk one day after the statute of limitations expired.

The Sixth Circuit vacated the trial court's decision and held that Richard's complaint was timely filed. The appeals court noted that in the instant case, the state statute of limitations for medical malpractice applied, and thus the action "must be brought within one year of the date on which the cause of action accrues." The court stated that a medical malpractice action "accrues at the time the injury is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered." The court held that, because the instant case involved a pro se prisoner, the holding set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) should apply. The court reiterated that in Houston, the Supreme Court held that the "mailbox rule" applied; thus, a pro se incarcerated prisoner's appeal was deemed filed when the notice of appeal was given to prison officials. The appeals court held that the reasoning of Houston should apply in the instant case because the rules governing the filing of civil complaints in federal court are similar to the rules governing the filing of federal appeals. Moreover, the court determined that pro se prisoners have no control over the filing of their claims, and that prison officials may be motivated to willfully obstruct the prisoner's claim. Thus, the court concluded that, after applying these principles, Richard's claim was indeed timely filed when he gave the complaint to prison authorities. Accordingly, the appeals court vacated the trial court's dismissal of the complaint.

Richard v. Ray, No. 01-5665, 2002 WL 875651 (6th Cir. May 8, 2002) (4 pages).

© 2018 American Health Lawyers Association. All rights reserved. 1620 Eye Street NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-4010 P. 202-833-1100 F. 202-833-1105