Joseph M. James v. Timothy E. Mace

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 15, 2024*
Decided October 17, 2024
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1037
JOSEPH M. JAMES
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TIMOTHY E. MACE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division.
No. 3:22-CV-1012-TLS-MGG
Theresa L. Springmann
Judge.
O R D E R
Joseph James, a former detainee at LaPorte County Jail, sued local officials under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 more than two years after the relevant events. After James failed to
respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed the suit as
barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. On appeal, James argues for the
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-1037 Page 2
first time that the district court wrongly set his accrual date, failed to toll the statute of
limitations, and did not give him a chance to amend. Because the court properly ruled
that the statute of limitations bars James’s claims, we affirm.
We accept the facts alleged in James’s operative complaint as true and review
them in the light most favorable to him. Thomas v. Neenah Joint Sch. Dist., 74 F.4th 521,
522 (7th Cir. 2023). James was detained at LaPorte County Jail in Michigan City,
Indiana, in July 2020. During that time, he did not receive drinking water or adequate
medical care, leading to neuropathy, emotional distress, organ failure, and a foot
amputation. He also alleges that defendants used excessive force, retaliated against him,
and negligently hired jail officers who fabricated evidence.
He sued in December 2022, about two and a half year after these events. Some
defendants moved to dismiss the suit, arguing Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations
applicable to claims under § 1983 barred his suit. James did not respond to the motions.
The district court dismissed the suit, reasoning that the statute of limitations barred it.
On appeal, James raises three arguments that he did not present to the district
court: The court incorrectly set his accrual date, his health issues tolled his statute of
limitations period, and he should have received a chance to amend his complaint.
We begin by observing that a plaintiff like James who fails to preserve an issue in
the district court has abandoned it for appeal. Braun v. Vill. of Palatine, 56 F.4th 542, 553
(7th Cir. 2022). The right time to preserve a response to the defense of the statute of
limitation is in opposition to the motion in the district court raising that defense. Thus,
we have affirmed the dismissal of a suit where the plaintiff raised on appeal an
unpreserved argument newly advanced in response to a statute-of-limitations defense.
O'Gorman v. City of Chicago, 777 F.3d 885, 890 (7th Cir. 2015).
Regardless, we see no error in the district court’s decisions. First, the district
court correctly ruled that James pleaded his accrual date as “July 2020” and that he
therefore sued too late. Federal law determines when a claim accrues. Wallace v. Kato,
549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). It is “when the plaintiff discovers his injury and its cause even
if the full extent or severity of the injury is not yet known.” Amin Ijbara Equity Corp. v.
Vill. of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir. 2017). James was in custody in July 2020,
and he states that he discovered his “permanent and persistent organ failure … while I
was in [] custody ….” He thus knew then that he was injured and needed medical
attention. The same is true of his allegations about in-custody excessive force,

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-1037 Page 3
retaliation, and other abuses. The district court therefore correctly determined that
James pleaded an accrual date of July 2020. The court also correctly ruled that James
sued too late. For § 1983 claims, federal courts borrow the statute of limitations for
analogous personal-injury claims in the forum state, Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 275
(1985); in Indiana, that period is two years from the accrual date, Devbrow v. Kalu, 705
F.3d 765, 767 (7th Cir. 2013); IND. C ODE § 34-11-2-4(a)(2022). When James sued in
December 2022, he was a half year too late.
Second, James argues for the first time on appeal that his health issues tolled the
statute of limitations, but even if we put aside his failure to preserve this argument, it is
unavailing. As most relevant here, in borrowing Indiana’s limitations and tolling rules,
a federal court may toll Indiana’s statutes of limitation because of a plaintiff’s “legal
disability” or “incompetence.” IND. C ODE . §§ 34–11–4–1 to 8–1. A “legal disability”
covers “persons less than eighteen (18) years of age, mentally incompetent, or out of the
United States.” IND. C ODE § 1–1–4–5(24). “Mentally incompetent” means “of unsound
mind,” IND . C ODE § 1–1–4–5(12). But James did not develop in the district court, and
does not develop on appeal, an argument that his health conditions rendered him
mentally incompetent.
Finally, James argues that the district court should have granted him leave to
amend his complaint. Generally, a district court that dismisses a complaint sua sponte
without granting a plaintiff leave to amend hazards reversal because the plaintiff has
not received an opportunity to contest or cure the complaint’s defect. Luevano v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022–23 (7th Cir. 2013). But the district court did not
dismiss this suit sua sponte. Rather, the defendants moved to dismiss, and James had
the chance to contest in the district court their limitations defense or seek leave to
amend and cure it. But he chose not to do so. And in any case, as discussed above, his
arguments on appeal for reviving his suit are unavailing. Thus, no error occurred.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --