Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Purisima v. McBride
Citation: Not availableDocket: Civil Action No. 2012-0990
Court: District Court, District of Columbia; June 19, 2012; Federal District Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed a pro se complaint filed by Anton Purisima against defendants Andre McBride and others, alongside a request to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted. However, the court dismissed the action as time-barred. Purisima alleged personal injuries from a motorcycle accident on June 2, 2008, while crossing the street in D.C. This complaint mirrored a previous one dismissed on September 15, 2010, due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Under D.C. law, personal injury actions must be filed within one to three years, depending on specific circumstances. Purisima argued that his case was timely because it stemmed from a prior complaint filed on June 1, 2009. However, the court clarified that the pendency of an action dismissed without prejudice does not toll the statute of limitations. Citing Dupree v. Jefferson, the court noted that the statute of limitations was not paused during the pendency of the first action, which had been dismissed. The outer limit for filing was three years from the incident date, making the current complaint, filed on June 4, 2012, untimely. Additionally, Purisima claimed the limitations period was tolled due to a related social security case in New York, but the court stated it is not bound by rulings from other jurisdictions. A separate order of dismissal was issued alongside this memorandum opinion.