Harmon v. Kunzer et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CLIFFORD W. HARMON, 	Case No. 2:26-cv-120
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
U.S. District Judge
v.
CHRIS KUNZER, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
Pro se Plaintiff Clifford W. Harmon filed a civil complaint on May 18, 2026.
Harmon asserts Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims against Dickenson County
Sheriff Department Officers Chris Kunzer and Harley Winters. Harmon claims that
Officers Kunzer and Winters used excessive force when they responded to a domestic
harassment call at Harmon’s residence.
The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on May 19,
2026. 	Pursuant to the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, the undersigned
respectfully recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case.
II. 	Summary of Complaint
Plaintiff asserts that Officers Kunzer and Winters were called to Harmon and
Angela Sostarich’s residence on April 28, 2023, around 11:00 AM for a domestic
harassment call. 	ECF No. 1, PageID.2. 	Harmon states that he requested to file a
complaint against his wife Angela Sostarich for harassment. 	Id. 	Harmon says the
Case 2:26-cv-00120-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 1
of 5

2
officers arrested him for Assault and Battery of Sostarich. 	ECF No. 1, PageID.3.
Harmon asserts that Officer Winters cut his hand with handcuffs. Id. 	Harmon says
that he has taken blood thinners since January 2022 and that he began bleeding
profusely. Id. Further, he asserts that the officers slammed him onto the hood of a
neighbor’s car. Harmon says he sustained two fractured ribs and a sprained left wrist
during the arrest. Id.
Next, Harmon says he was held at Dickinson County Jail from Friday, April
28, 2023, until Monday, May 1, 2023. 	ECF No. 1, PageID.4. 	Harmon asserts that,
while at Dickinson County Jail, he did not receive his proper medication, was forced
to stay in soiled clothes, and was denied a shower for several days. 	Id. 	Harmon
further contends that he did not receive proper medical care for broken ribs while he
was detained at Dickinson County Jail. 	ECF No. 1, PageID.6. 	Harmon states that
following his detention, he could not find or afford lodging until May 3, 2026, when
he received his disability payment from the State of Michigan. Id.
III. 	Standard of Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any action brought in
forma pauperis if the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
Case 2:26-cv-00120-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 2
of 5

3
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
a plaintiff’s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Id. The court
must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 	Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a
“probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In addition, the Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true,
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992).
IV. 	Analysis
A. Statute of Limitations
State statutes of limitations and tolling principles apply to determine the
timeliness of claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261,
268 69 (1985). 	For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of
limitations is three years. 	Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10); Carroll v. Wilkerson,
782 F.2d 44, 44 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Stafford v. Vaughn, No. 97-2239, 1999
WL 96990, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 1999). Accrual of the claim for relief, however, is a
question of federal law. Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 220 (6th Cir. 1996); Sevier v.
Case 2:26-cv-00120-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 3
of 5

4
Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 272 (6th Cir. 1984). 	The statute of limitations begins to run
when the aggrieved party knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis
of his action. Collyer, 98 F.3d at 220.
Here, Harmon’s claims arise from events he asserts took place between April
28, 2023, and May 2, 2023. 	Plaintiff knew of the alleged harms at the time they
occurred. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint was post-marked on April 28, 2026. 	ECF No. 1,
PageID.16. 	The Complaint was not filed until May 18, 2026 – over two weeks after
the statute of limitations expired. As another Court in this District has explained:
“Rule 5(b) governs service, not filing. Filing of papers is governed by
Rule 5(d).” Sandoval v. United States, No. 00 CIV 1259, 2001 WL
300729, at * 4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.28, 2001). Rule 5(b) (2)(c) provides for
service of papers by mail. It does not establish a “mailbox rule” for the
filing of a complaint. The “mailbox rule” applies only to prisoners reliant
on the institution to mail court papers. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(c)
[…]
Rule 5(d)(2) states that a paper “is filed by delivering it” to the
clerk. Fed. 	R. 	Civ. P. 	5(d)(2). Filing 	occurs 	when 	the complaint 	is
delivered into the actual custody of the clerk. See Perkins v. Social Sec.
Admin., No. 3:09–cv–52, 2009 WL 2431396, at * 1 n. 1 (W.D.Va. Aug.7,
2009). Plaintiff’s counsel could have hand-delivered the complaint to the
Clerk’s Office in Kalamazoo, but instead mailed the complaint to the
Clerk. It did not arrive until after the November 28, 2011 deadline had
passed. 	Mailing 	papers 	does 	not 	constitute 	filing. See Raymond 	v.
Ameritech 	Corp., 442 	F.3d 	600, 	604–05 	(7th 	Cir.2006). 	“It 	is 	well
established that when papers are mailed to the clerk’s office, filing is
complete only upon the clerk's receipt of those papers, and that filings
reaching the clerk's office after a deadline are untimely, even if they are
mailed 	before 	the 	deadline.” Crawford–Mulley 	v. 	Corning, 	Inc., 77
F.Supp.2d 	366, 	368 	(W.D.N.Y.1999); see Torras 	Herreria 	y
Construcciones, 	S.A. 	v. 	M/V 	Timur 	Star, 803 	F.2d 	215, 	216 	(6th
Cir.1986); Perkins v. Social Sec. Admin., 2009 WL 2431396, at * 1 n
.1; see also McIntosh v. Antonio, 71 F.3d at 36–37; United States v.
White, 980 F.2d 836, 845 (2d Cir.1992); accord Adidas Am., Inc. v.
Calmese, 662 F.Supp.2d 1294, 1300 (D.Ore.2009).
Case 2:26-cv-00120-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 4
of 5

5
Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:11-CV-1255, 2012 WL 1830218, at *3 (W.D. Mich.
May 18, 2012).
Here, the docket indicates that Plaintiff’s Complaint was delivered to the
Clerk’s Office on May 18, 2026. 	Thus, pursuant to Rule 5(d)(2), the Complaint was
not filed until May 18, 2026. 	The latest harms described in Plaintiff’s Complaint
allegedly took place on May 2, 2023. ECF No. 1, PageID.6. Therefore, in the opinion
of the undersigned, Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.
V. 	Recommendation
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned respectfully recommends that
the Court dismiss Harmon’s Complaint because his claims are barred by the statute
of limitations.
Dated: 	May 27, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be served on opposing
parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of
this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of
any further right to appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Case 2:26-cv-00120-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 5
of 5