Altice, C.J.
Case Summary
Shaka Shakur appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) Commissioner Robert Carter, Jr. (Commissioner Carter), DOC Director Jack Hendrix, and Westville Correctional Facility (Westville) Warden Richard Brown (collectively, the DOC Officials). Shakur claims that the trial court erred in concluding that his claims of due process violations and cruel and unusual punishment were time barred. Shakur further contends that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether his constitutional rights were violated as a result of DOC disciplinary sanctions and alleged medical neglect at various DOC facilities.
We affirm.
….
Shakur contends that the trial court erred in determining that his claims against the DOC Officials are time-barred. He argues that his Section 1983 Action is not foreclosed because the DOC Officials’ conduct constituted a “continuing violation” and, therefore, the statute of limitations was not triggered. Appellant’s Brief at 16. Shakur further maintains that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether his retention in solitary confinement and the DOC Officials’ conduct regarding the revocation of his credit time violated his right to due process.
At the outset, we note that our research has revealed little Indiana authority on point as to the issues that Shakur presents in this appeal…
Here, the designated evidence shows that although Shakur was continuously placed in restrictive housing since 2005 at various DOC facilities, he did not file his Section 1983 Action against the DOC Officials until February 2019. Thus, in accordance with the two-year limitations period set forth in I.C. § 34-11-11-2- 4(a), Shakur’s claims were limited to damages—if any—that accrued within the twenty-four-month window prior to that date. Any claims for relief that accrued before that deadline were time-barred and unavailable to him.
Additionally, although Shakur maintains that the DOC Officials’ conduct amounted to a continuing episode of harm against him that would preserve his claim for damages before the 2017 cutoff, we note that the “continuing wrong” doctrine applies where an entire course of conduct combines to produce an injury. Crowe, Chizek, & Co., L.L.P. v. Oil Tech., Inc., 771 N.E.2d 1203, 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. When a loss is intermittent and recurring, “new limitations are triggered” each time the loss occurs. Kerr v. City of South Bend, 48 N.E.3d 348, 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
The designated evidence in this case does not establish that Shakur’s placement in disciplinary segregation at the various DOC facilities was a single, continuous episode. Rather, those sanctions resulted from a series of disciplinary proceedings that occurred at various times in 2005 and from 2013- 17. Each offense that Shakur committed, and the sanctions imposed thereon were separate and did not constitute an ongoing episode. Hence, Shakur’s recovery—if any—is “limited to losses which occurred beginning” two years before he filed his complaint. Id. As Shakur did not file his complaint until February 2019, his claims for damages occurring before February 2017 are time-barred under I.C. § 34-11-11-2-4(a), and only those that accrued after that date may proceed.
….
… For all these reasons, Shakur’s due process challenges fail, and we conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in the DOC Officials’ favor as to those claims.
….
Judgment affirmed.
Bradford, J. and Felix, J., concur.