Puderer v. Cain, et al

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-30809

Darryl Puderer,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Burl N. Cain, Warden, Individually and in their official capacities;
Trish Foster, Legal Programs Director, Employed at Louisiana State
Penitentiary, Individually and in their official capacities; James LeBlanc,
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Individually
and in their official capacities; Timothy Delaney, Assistant Warden,
Individually and in their official capacities,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-156

Before Willett, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-30809 Document: 00515662143 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2020

No. 19-30809

Darryl Puderer, Louisiana prisoner # 601803, appeals the judgment
dismissing his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous because it was
time barred. By moving for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), he also
challenges the district court’s denial of leave to proceed IFP on appeal and
its certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
According to Puderer, his March 2019 complaint was timely because
he was entitled to equitable or statutory tolling after March 11, 2015. Puderer
says tolling is appropriate due to inadequate prison-library resources and
legal assistance, which constitute a State-created impediment to filing his
case.
Under Louisiana’s general personal injury prescriptive period,
Puderer had one year, or until March 11, 2016, to file his § 1983 complaint,
absent suspension or interruption of that period. See Bargher v. White,
928 F.3d 439, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2019); La. Civ. Code art. 3492. He filed
the complaint on March 8, 2019, at the earliest. See Cooper v. Brookshire,
70 F.3d 377, 379-80 (5th Cir. 1995). Although he invokes the common law
doctrine of equitable tolling to argue that the complaint was timely, we
liberally construe the argument as asserting that the prescriptive period
should be suspended under the doctrine of contra non valentem, see Bradley
v. Sheriff’s Dep’t St. Landry Parish, 958 F.3d 387, 394 (5th Cir. 2020), which
applies in exceptional circumstances, Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So. 3d
234, 245 (La. 2010), when the “plaintiff is effectually prevented from
enforcing his rights for reasons external to his own will,” Bradley, 958 F.3d
at 394 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Puderer does not assert that he was unable to file the § 1983 action
between March 2015 and March 2019 because the courts were closed or
otherwise unable to consider his complaint, because of administrative or
Case: 19-30809 Document: 00515662143 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2020

No. 19-30809
3
contractual restraints, or because he was unaware of the cause of action. See
Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 158 (5th Cir. 1999); Brinkmann v. Dallas
Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). To the extent he
contends that the defendants prevented him from filing the § 1983 case by
providing an inadequate law library, legal materials, and assistance, see
Hegmann, 198 F.3d at 158, we have held that an inadequate law library does
not prevent a prisoner from filing a pro se paper that would be liberally
construed as a complaint in federal court, Schaefer v. Stack, 641 F.2d 227, 228
(5th Cir. 1981) (applying Florida law). We also have held that an inmate’s
status as an indigent layman who lacks legal assistance is not a ground for
suspending the Louisiana prescriptive period for a § 1983 action. Kissinger v.
Foti, 544 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1977). We likewise have held, in an analogous
context, that an inmate’s pro se status, ignorance of the law, and lack of
access to the prison law library do not constitute the sort of rare and
exceptional circumstances that justify equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations for a § 2254 application. See Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 170-
72 (5th Cir. 2000).
For all these reasons, Puderer’s argument that his complaint was
timely is frivolous. His argument that he should have received an evidentiary
hearing also is frivolous because the complaint was untimely even assuming
the accuracy of his factual allegations. Accordingly, the instant appeal lacks
arguable merit and is not taken in good faith. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED,
and, in the interest of judicial economy, the appeal is DISMISSED as
frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 201-02 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The
motions for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing are
DENIED as well.
Both the district court’s dismissal of the § 1983 action and our
dismissal of this appeal count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Case: 19-30809 Document: 00515662143 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2020

No. 19-30809
4
See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015). Puderer is WARNED
that, once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil
action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless
he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
Case: 19-30809 Document: 00515662143 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/04/2020