Maryland Court of Appeals says state lawsuit can come after federal

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Oct 10, 2008 by Christina Doran

The state's highest court has revived a former physician's lawsuit against Montgomery County over the treatment she received during her arrest and detention more than eight years ago.

Reversing two lower-court decisions, the Court of Appeals found that Sherri A. Turner's lawsuit in state court was timely when it was filed, which was just days after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against her on the federal causes of action.

While the Court of Appeals followed the minority interpretation of a federal statute of limitations, Turner's attorney said a contrary ruling would have required plaintiffs to file suit in federal and state court at the same time.

"[State courts] don't have to grant [a] stay," said the attorney, Ralph T. Byrd of Laytonsville. "You are liable to find yourself in the position where the federal case is on appeal [and] you are forced to go into state court ...with the state-court claims encumbered by issues of res judicata."

"There is too much still boiling in the federal court system to leave and try to cook in the state court system," he added.

Patricia P. Via, chief of the division of litigation for Montgomery County, did not return a call for comment. The attorney general's office is reviewing the opinion, according to acting spokeswoman Shanetta Paskel.

Five years in the federal system

Turner's federal suit against the county was filed in May 2001, in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.

She claimed that on April 19 and April 21, 2000, her civil rights were violated during the execution of an arrest warrant and her subsequent detention by the Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.

Turner was wanted on contempt of court charges after failing to appear in Montgomery County District Court regarding a former landlord's money judgment, according to the 4th Circuit's opinion. She said the officers burst into her home, insulting her and "terrifying" her daughters, but ultimately agreed to let her turn herself in days later.

On April 21, she presented herself at the sheriff's office, where she was arrested and transferred to the detention center.

Turner, who had suffered a spinal injury in an automobile accident in 1997, claimed she was denied use of her neck brace or access to her pain medication during her arrest, transfer and detention. She made other allegations of mistreatment as well.

She later added state tort claims to her federal complaint. The federal court found against Turner on the federal claims and declined to rule on her state claims in March 2002. After agreeing to reconsider, the court ultimately reached the same conclusion on Dec. 22, 2003.

The 4th Circuit affirmed the judgments and, on March 8, 2005, the appeals court denied her request for a rehearing.

Turner filed suit in Montgomery County Circuit Court three days later.

Suspension or extension

Turner claimed her suit was timely because the federal statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. [section]1367(d), "suspends" the state-court time limit while the federal case is pending. In other words, the three-year clock stopped as soon as she filed her federal action, and started running again 30 days after her appeals were concluded.

The Montgomery County Circuit Court, however, said that Turner was misreading the law. Under its interpretation -- the majority view -- the clock keeps running on the state-court action, but the effect is stayed while the case is pending in the federal trial court.

It found that Turner's lawsuit was not timely filed because more than 30 days had passed since the U.S. District Court decision in March 2002.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed last year, noting that the "extension" approach is the majority view.

"[I]t is fair to say that, of the few federal and state courts that have considered this question, a majority have held that [section]1367(d) tolls the effect, but not the advancement, of any limitations period pertaining to state claims that are awaiting decision in federal court," the intermediate court wrote in its Dec. 19, 2007 decision.

The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed.

"[The statute] must be read as adopting the suspension approach," the top court wrote, stating that it agreed with the interpretation of Minnesota, California and Pennsylvania courts.

This approach, the court explained, means that "upon dismissal of the pendent claims, the plaintiff would have whatever time was left under the State statute of limitations when the action was filed in Federal court plus 30 days."

WHAT THE COURT HELD

Case: Sherri A. Turner v. Raymond A. Kight, et al., CA No. 5, Sept. Term 2008. Reported. Opinion by Wilner, J. Filed October 7, 2008.

Issue: Was it correct to interpret a federal tolling statute to mean that a state complaint was barred under the statute of limitations because it was not filed 30 days after the federal claims were dismissed but rather after when all appeals were exhausted?

Holding: No; The statute "serves to suspend the running of a State statute of limitations from the time the State-law claim is filed in the U.S. District Court until 30 days after (1) a final judgment is entered by the U.S. District Court dismissing the pendant State-law claims, or (2) if an appeal is noted from that judgment, issuance of an order of the U.S. Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal or a mandate affirming the dismissal of those claims by the District Court."