Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 96-1979
JUSTIN HOLMES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendants, Appellees.
___________________
____________________
Before
____________________
Special
Senior
Assistant
Litigation
Attorney
Counsel,
General,
Department
____________________
Per Curiam.
___________
As
the
defendants
now
concede,
the
been
submitted
along
with
the
in
forma
pauperis
(IFP)
of
limitations period,
was
thereby timely.
See Dean
___ ____
1991)
(holding that,
at
least in
application is subsequently
timely
filed,
presented
application
to
granted, a
for
statute
the
district
within
the
the
of
court
statute
of
503 U.S.
(6th Cir.
case where
complaint is
limitations
along
an
limitations
902 (1992);
IFP
deemed
purposes,
with
v.
the
if
IFP
period),
Gilardi v.
_______
Schroeder, 833 F.2d 1226, 1233 (7th Cir. 1987) (same); Martin
_________
______
v. Demma,
_____
see also
________
Jarrett v.
_______
(10th
Cir.) (same)
F.3d 256,
S.
259
Ct. 368
(1994).
They request
that
that we
affirm nonetheless on
merits,
leaving that
review to
precise
scope
(apart
from the
limitations
district
of the
the
district court
complaint is
judgment
on the
the ground
unclear.
pleadings
grounds)
not
addressed
by
court, with
the
agreement of
in the
because the
In
an order
on statute
either
of
party, the
the plaintiff,
see
___
-2-
documents
24
defendants
July 23,
dismissed
Duval,
recited to
the
Mahtesian,
be with
judgment referenced
of
25,
DuBois,
dismissal was
subsequent
&
complaint
and
as
against
Metrano.
prejudice and,
The
while the
order of
1996, plaintiff's
notice of
appeal referenced
addressed
appeal,
ruling.
Yet,
the underlying
the
complaint is
arguments
merits
appear
not time-barred,
district
court,
upon
of the
to
remand,
complaint on
presume
to
We leave
resolve,
that,
at issue.
No costs.
have
in
this
if
of all
it to
the
the
the
first
-3-