AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Defenses: Statute of Limitations
An arrestee's lawsuit
over being shot during the arrest was barred by a Texas two-year statute
of limitations. A doctor's letter stating that the plaintiff suffered from
depression and anxiety was insufficient to show that the plaintiff was
of "unsound mind" continuously and therefore should have the
statute of limitations tolled (extended). Aduddle v. Body, No. 07-20190,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9745 (5th Cir.).
An arrest and the
shooting of the arrestee occurred in 1998, so that any lawsuit filed over
the incident was time-barred by Michigan's three-year statute of limitations,
and was properly dismissed when it was not filled until 2002. No "tolling"
(extension) of the time period was justified, since the arrestee stated
that he was conscious "before, during, and after" the time he
was shot, and that he took the position, at the time of the incident, that
he had been deliberately shot by the officer without provocation, allegedly
in order to "cover up" the shooting officer's accidental shooting
of a fellow officer during the arrest. Drake v. City of Detroit, No. 06-1817,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4224 (6th Cir.).
An arrestee who claimed in his lawsuit that
he had been falsely arrestee under a warrant that had been dismissed could
not pursue his claim when he failed to give the date of the purported arrest,
or the date he had been arraigned, since, without that information, it
could not be determined whether his lawsuit was timely. Further, the plaintiff
failed to name particular defendants responsible for his alleged arrest,
and improperly sought to assert claims for federal civil rights liability
against the county on the basis of vicarious liability. Porto v. Camden
County Freedholders, No. 07-5359, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90855 (D.N.J.).
All claims in an arrestee's lawsuit asserting
that his rights had been violated by officers involved in his arrest, prosecution,
and conviction between May 2003 and February 2004 were barred by an applicable
two-year statute of limitations. Rodriguez v. Pennsylvania, No. 07-4295,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29252 (3rd Cir.).
A lawsuit filed approximately five years
after events giving rise to an arrestee's federal civil rights claims was
barred by an applicable Georgia two-year statute of limitations. Additionally,
the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, under the circumstances,
in finding that the lawsuit was frivolous because it was time-barred. Simon
v. City of Atlanta, Ga., No. 06-16269, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28967 (11th
Cir.).
In a federal civil rights lawsuit by a woman
raising various claims concerning the defendants' alleged actions impacting
on her custody of a minor, allegations of abuse, and her arrest and imprisonment,
all of her claims involved events occurring between 2000 and 2003. Since
this time period was more than two years before the filing of her lawsuit,
the trial court properly found that the lawsuit should be dismissed on
the basis of a Texas statute of limitations. Morgan v. State of Texas,
No. 06-20839, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24772 (5th Cir.).
Two men, now in their 40's could not pursue
their claims against the City of Los Angeles and the Boy Scouts of America
concerning their alleged sexual abuse by a police officer in the 1970's
when they participated in a police department Explorer Scout program. Under
a California statute, such claims must be brought before the victim's 26th
birthday, unless the defendant knew or had reason to know of the unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee or agent, and failed to take "reasonable
steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful
sexual conduct in the future by that person." The California Supreme
Court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit on statute of limitations grounds,
finding that the plaintiffs failed to make specific enough allegations
concerning the defendants' knowledge of the officer's alleged past sexual
misconduct with minors to bring their case within the cited exception to
the statute. Doe v. City of Los Angeles, No. S142546, 2007 Cal. Lexis 12186.
Civil rights claims arising from the plaintiff's
1980's arrest, prosecution, trial, and sentencing was time-barred under
a Pennsylvania state two-year statute of limitations because the events
at issue occurred over 20 years ago. Additionally, a false imprisonment
claim was barred because the plaintiff was released from prison in March
of 2003 and did not file a lawsuit until more than two years later. Hewlett
v. Abraham, No. 07-1931, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18788 (3rd Cir.).
A businessman arrested for allegedly selling
furniture after his license was suspended could not pursue malicious prosecution
claims when he filed his lawsuit 2-1/2 years after the prosecution against
him was abandoned, nor could he pursue a false arrest claim filed 3 years
after his arrest. Both claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
An offer by the defendants to drop the charges against him if he agreed
not to sue them did not alter the result when he found out that the prosecution
had already been dismissed the day after the offer was made, and, as a
result, did not sign the release of claims the defendants provided. Shane
v. Tracy, No. 88479, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 3176 (8th Dist., Cuyahoga County).
Arrestee failed to prevent any viable legal
theory or point to any specific facts which could alter the trial court's
decision that his lawsuit was filed after the applicable two-year statute
of limitations expired, and was therefore time-barred. Watson v. James,
No. 06-6350, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18012 (10th Cir.).
An arrestee's claims for alleged unlawful
detention accrued at the latest in 1996, so that claims he asserted under
the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in 2004, were barred by a two-year statute
of limitations in 28 U.S.C.S. § 2401(b). Feurtado v. Dunivant, No.
06-56496, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14238 (9th Cir.).
An arrestee's false arrest claim did not
accrue under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 until the prosecution terminated in his
favor, so that his lawsuit, filed one year after that was not barred by
a statute of limitations. Mapes v. Bishop, No. 06-30559, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 14123 (5th Cir.).
When an arrestee was arraigned on June 7,
2002, and his federal civil rights lawsuit for false imprisonment was filed
in February of 2006, his claim was time-barred under an Ohio state two-year
statute of limitations for personal injuries. The statute of limitations
for a false imprisonment claim accrued when the false imprisonment ended,
in other words, at the time that the plaintiff began to be held based on
legal process, a judicial determination of probable cause, reached at the
arraignment. Meadows v. Whetsel, No. 06-6211, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12153
(10th Cir.).
Arrestee's claims for false arrest and malicious
prosecution under the Federal Tort Claims Act and for federal postal employees'
alleged violations of his federal civil rights accrued at the date that
the alleged wrongful prosecution of him ended, so that they were barred
by an applicable two-year statute of limitations. Braunstein v. U.S. Postal
Service, No. 05-16390, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8831 (9th Cir.).
The plaintiffs' claims for unlawful search
and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment accrued at the date of
their arrest, so their failure to filed their civil rights lawsuit until
three years later meant that their claims were time barred under a two-year
statute of limitations. The rule in Heck v. Humphrey, No. 93-6188, 512
U.S. 477 (1994) that a federal civil rights claim does not accrue until
a conviction is reversed or vacated did not apply because the plaintiffs
had not been convicted of anything at the time of their arrest. Kucharski
v. Leveille, No. 05-73669, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19918 (E.D. Mich.).
U.S. Supreme Court rules that the statute
of limitations on a federal civil rights claim for false arrest which results
in a criminal prosecution starts to run on the date the arrestee is detained.
Wallace v. Kato, No. 05-1240, 127 S. Ct. 1091 (2007).[N/R]
The fact that the plaintiff had filed a prior
lawsuit concerning the same incident did not toll (extend) the applicable
statute of limitations, when the plaintiff never obtained service of process
over the defendants in the prior action. Her second lawsuit, therefore,
was barred by the statute of limitations, based on when it was filed. Geary
v. City of Snellville, No. 06-12898, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27611 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
While plaintiff's claim that denial of access
to physical evidence which was the basis for his murder conviction stated
circumstances which might violate his constitutional rights, his claim
was time-barred under a two-year statute of limitations which began to
run on the date that a state court denied his request for access to the
physical evidence for purposes of DNA testing. Savory v. Lyons, No.
06-1296 (7th Cir. November 29, 2006). [N/R]
Neither federal nor Illinois state law extended
(tolled) the running of a two-year statute of limitations on a federal
civil rights lawsuit for alleged wrongful arrest until the conclusion of
criminal proceedings against the arrestee The arrestee's false arrest claim
accrued at the time of the arrest. Foryoh v. Triton College, No. 06-1626,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 24555 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
Federal civil rights lawsuit against police
officer arising out of alleged harassment of plaintiffs through issuance
of over 60 parking and traffic citations was barred by a state three-year
statute of limitations. Olukayode v. Baltimore County, Md., No. L-04-2615,
2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73147 (D. Md.). [N/R]
Common law claims for defamation, assault,
battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, and false light invasion of
privacy were time-barred under a D.C. one-year statute of limitations.
Rynn v. Jaffe, No. 05-2066, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 76140 (D.D.C.). [N/R]
While claims for false arrest, illegal search
and excessive force accrued, for purposes of an Illinois statute of limitations,
on the date of the arrest, the arrestee's claim for malicious prosecution
did not accrue until the charges against him were dropped. Foryoh v. Hannah-Porter,
No. 05 C 2975, 428 F. Supp. 2d 816 (N.D. Ill. 2006). [N/R]
Arrestee's claim against officer arising
out of his search and the officer's alleged action in coercing him into
signing a release allowing the videotape of the incident to be shown on
television on the Fox TV show "Cops" accrued at the time of his
arrest, so his claims were barred under a Kansas statute of limitations
when he sued the officer more than two years later. While his claims against
the television producers and network for invasion of privacy accrued later,
when the program aired, he could not pursue federal civil rights claims
against them, because they did not act under color of state law. Mitchell
v. Langley, No. 05-3393, 172 Fed. Appx. 900 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
A New Jersey two-year statute of limitations
on the plaintiff's false arrest and imprisonment claims began to run, at
the latest, on the date when a grand jury declined to indict him on the
underlying criminal complaint, or the date when he learned of this or reasonably
should have, so that his lawsuit, filed four years later, was time barred.
Akinola v. Doe, No. 05-4454, 165 Fed. Appx. 242 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
An arrestee's claims for intentional infliction
of emotional distress against federal prosecutors and a postal inspector
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b), arising out
of his arrest, were subject to a two year statute of limitations in New
York. Levine v. Gerson, No. 05-0748, 164 Fed. Appx. 64 (2d Cir. 2006).
[N/R]
A former convict who received a pardon on
the basis of innocence on a rape he was arrested and prosecuted for more
than 50 years earlier could pursue a number of federal civil rights claims
arising out of his arrest and prosecution. Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), federal civil rights claims which would necessarily show
the invalidity of a conviction do not accrue until the conviction has been
set aside, and the court ruled that the rule in Heck would be applied retroactively
to determine whether the statute of limitations period should be tolled
(extended) on such claims. Walden v. City of Chicago, No. 04C0047, 391
F. Supp. 2d 660 (N.D. Ill. 2005). [N/R]
In a lawsuit by man claiming a city "chilled"
his First Amendment rights by gathering and filing information about his
political activity as early as the late 1960s, and sharing this information
with other agencies until March of 2000, his claims accrued, for purposes
of a two-year Colorado statute of limitations on the date on which, based
on his own admissions, he had knowledge that the files existed. His claims
were therefore time-barred under the statute, when his own admissions showed
that he had sufficient knowledge that the files existed by 1998, "at
the latest," and he did not file his lawsuit until 2003. Vigil v City
and County of Denver, #04-1414, 162 Fed. Appx. 809 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Excessive force, unreasonable search, and
invasion of privacy claims were properly dismissed as time-barred under
Texas two-year statute of limitations, but false arrest and malicious prosecution
claims would not accrue until criminal prosecution against arrestee terminated
in his favor. These claims, therefore, were not time-barred, and might
be able to be re-filed after the prosecution of the plaintiff concluded.
Price v. City of San Antonio, No. 04-51213, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26539
(5th Cir.). [2006 LR Feb]
Purported police harassment of witness who
claimed to have witnessed two police officers murdering a woman was an
insufficient basis for a civil RICO claim. The plaintiff's alleged loss
of employment income because of false arrest and malicious prosecution,
and his expenses for attorneys' fees to defend himself were not an injury
to "business or property" as required for standing to bring a
RICO lawsuit. Federal appeals court also upholds dismissal of plaintiff's
First Amendment civil rights claim and state law claims as untimely. Evans
v. City of Chicago, No. 03-3844, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 264 (7th Cir.). [2006
LR Feb]
False arrest lawsuit, filed almost two years
after the arrest, was time-barred under Puerto Rico's one-year statute
of limitations, which began to run from the time of the arrest. Morales
v. Fantauzzi, No. Civ. 04-2255, 389 F. Supp. 2nd 147 (D. Puerto Rico. 2005).
[N/R]
District of Columbia one-year statute of
limitations for false arrest was "tolled" (extended) during the
time the arrestee was in jail, and did not start to run until his release
from custody. Fernandors v. District of Columbia, No. CIV.A.02-2001, 382
F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2005). [N/R]
In a lawsuit by animal protection volunteers
against employees of a government investigating commission who allegedly
published defamatory material about them on a government website, the claim
was time barred by a one-year New Jersey statute of limitations for defamation
claims. The statute of limitations began to run on the date the material
was first published on the website, and that time period was not extended
by the fact that the website was subsequently updated or modified while
continuing to contain the same allegedly defamatory material. Churchill
v. State of New Jersey, 876 A.2d 311 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005). [N/R]
While plaintiff's federal civil rights claims
arising out of the search of his residence were barred by Oklahoma's two-year
statute of limitations, his claims arising out of his subsequent arrest
three months later, and the alleged use of excessive force against him
were not time barred. Trial court erred in utilizing the date of the search
as the applicable date from which all of the plaintiff's claims accrued.
Price v. Philpot, No. 04-7121, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18050 (10th Cir.).
[N/R]
Arrestee's claim for excessive use of force
during his arrest, allegedly causing problems with his hearing, was time-barred
under a three-year New York statute of limitations when he failed to bring
his lawsuit until ten years after the incident. The time limit began to
run from the date he was allegedly beaten. Hussain v. Commissioner, No.
04-CV-2443, 368 F. Supp. 2d 216 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Federal trial court was mistaken in dismissing
a federal civil rights lawsuit as time-barred by a Kentucky one-year statute
of limitations, as the lawsuit was filed within one year from the date
that the plaintiff had reason to know he had a claim. Kelly v. Burks, No.
04-5692 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 14634 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
Federal civil rights claim for detective's
alleged unlawful seizure of computer from man's apartment accrued at the
time the seizure occurred, or, at the latest, when the owner learned of
the seizure, and his federal civil rights lawsuit was therefore time barred
under an Indiana two year statute of limitations. Holly v. Anton, No. 03-1653,
97 Fed. Appx. 39 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Claims for excessive use of force during
drug possession arrest accrued on the date of the arrest, even though the
plaintiff claimed not to realize the permanent nature of his injuries from
the officers' alleged choking and hitting until three months later. His
lawsuit, therefore, was time barred under the Ohio statute of limitations.
Hodge v. City of Elyria, No. 03-3296, 126 Fed. Appx. 222 (6th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Lawsuit asserting claims under Kansas state
statute concerning legitimate procedures for strip and body cavity searches
was governed by three-year statute of limitations applicable to statutory
claims, rather than one-year statute of limitations governing privacy claims
or two-year statute of limitations applicable to federal civil rights claims
in the state. The arrestee's lawsuit, therefore, was not time barred and
was reinstated. McCormick v. City of Lawrence, No. 90,853, 104 P.3d 991
(Kan. 2005). [N/R]
While a two-year Illinois statute of limitations
for personal injury cases applied to federal civil rights claims against
a municipality and its police officer, a shorter one-year statute of limitations
applied to state law claims against the same defendants joined with the
federal civil rights lawsuit. Both federal and state law claims were time
barred and were therefore properly dismissed. Williams v. Lampe, No. 04-1497,
399 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
In a lawsuit concerning the death of an Ohio
resident allegedly caused by the distress the Ohio father suffered over
the purported wrongful arrest of his son by California police officers,
a California state six-month statute of limitations applied, rather than
a two-year Ohio statute of limitations. The federal trial court, applying
the California statute to the father's federal civil rights claim, therefore
properly dismissed the lawsuit as time barred. Estate of Darulis v. Garate,
No. 03-16580, 401 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Liquor store owners stated a viable possible
claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b)
based on alleged conduct of FBI agents who allegedly passed their names
on to racketeers after they reported to police that they were victims of
extortion by the racketeers, resulting in damage to their businesses. The
racketeers were allegedly being protected by the FBI agents as confidential
informants, and the agents acted within the scope of their employment under
the FTCA in taking their alleged actions. The actions did not come within
the "discretionary function" exemption to the FTCA, because the
agents had "no room" for the exercise of discretion under extensive
FBI regulations concerning how to handle confidential informants. The claims
asserted, however, were time barred under the applicable statute of limitations,
so the complaint was dismissed. Rakes v. United States, No. CIV.A.02-10480,
352 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D. Mass. 2005). [N/R]
Federal trial court properly dismissed both
state law and federal claims asserted by a woman concerning injuries allegedly
inflicted on her by a police officer, even though the defendants failed
to raise their statute of limitations defense on the original state law
claims in state court until after answering an amended complaint. Federal
appeals court decision discusses relationship between statutes of limitations
on state and federal claims in Illinois in a case removed to federal court
from state court. Williams v. Lampe, No. 04-1497 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 3430
(7th Cir.). [2005 LR Apr]
The applicable three-year statute of limitations
on an attorney's federal civil rights claim against court officers who
allegedly physically assaulted him started to run on the date of the alleged
assault. The fact that an allegedly "related" claim was pending
in state court did not toll (extend) the three-year time period, so the
complaint was properly dismissed as untimely. Keane v. Navarro, No. Civ.A.03-CV-10154,
345 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D. Mass. 2004). [N/R]
Motorist' claim against the State of New
York for state and federal constitutional violations concerning two stops
during which his car and person were searched were time barred when not
filed within the two-year jurisdictional time limit of the New York Court
of Claims. McKinney's Court of Claims Act, Sec. 10, sub. 3. The state was
immune from these constitutional claims when not filed within two years,
rather than the otherwise applicable New York statute of limitations of
three years for federal constitutional claims or six years for state constitutional
claims. Lyles v. State, 3 N.Y.3d 396, 820 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
While a one-year statute of limitations applied
to an arrestee's malicious prosecution claim under Illinois law, the statute
started to run not at the time criminal charges against him were first
dismissed, since they could have still been reinstated, but rather at the
time when a statutory speedy trial period lapsed, and the prosecutor was
barred from continuing to seek to prosecute him. Ferguson v. City of Chicago,
No. 97218, 820 N.E.2d 455 (Ill. 2004). [N/R]
A motion to vacate on the basis of bad faith
and misconduct a prior settlement and voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff's
claim against the Missouri Highway Patrol for the alleged improper seizure
and retention of cash found in his vehicle during an arrest for a drug
offense had to be brought within a one-year statute of limitations for
motions founded in fraud. The plaintiff's three-year delay in bringing
the motion was not reasonable, so that the motion was properly denied.
Middleton v. McDonald, No. 03-3179, 388 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Statute of limitations was tolled (extended)
during the time that court ordered mediation of the case was attempted.
Plaintiff injured in a traffic accident with a county deputy sheriff could
therefore pursue his personal injury claim even though the five-year statute
of limitations had passed since the accident. Gonzalez v. County of Los
Angeles, No. B168867, 19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 381 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 2004).
[N/R]
Motorists' claims against individual officers
that they were stopped and searched without probable cause were time-barred
when they were not named as individual defendants until after the statute
of limitations expired. While the city had allegedly refused to release
the officers' names to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs only filed their
lawsuit one month before the statute expired, and failed to pursue discovery
requests to obtain the officers' names until seven months later, so they
were not entitled to tolling (extension) of the statute of limitations.
Hines v. City of Chicago, #03-1595, 91 Fed. Appx. 501 (7th Cir. 2004).
[N/R]
An arrestee's civil rights claim for coercive
interrogation and torture by officers allegedly used to compel him to falsely
confess to a murder did not accrue, for purposes of the statute of limitations,
until his conviction was overturned. Accordingly, his claims were not time-barred.
Patterson v. Burge, #03C4433, 328 F. Supp. 2d 878 (N.D. Ill. 2004). [N/R]
Lawsuit against U.S. soldiers allegedly involved in My Lai Massacre on
March 16, 1968 during the Vietnam War by residents of Vietnamese village
was barred by applicable statutes of limitations. Soldiers did not act
under color of state law, so federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 were barred. Federal civil rights claims for direct violations
of federal law under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), were barred under the four-year Utah state personal injury
statute of limitations, which applied, despite the fact that the alleged
misconduct occurred in Vietnam, as the federal court was not required to
attempt to apply a non-existent "hypothetical" Vietnamese statute
of limitations. Claims under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
were barred by a ten-year statute of limitations. International convention
against the use of statutes of limitations to bar claims concerning war
crimes did not apply, as the U.S. government had not adhered to that convention,
and it also only applies to criminal prosecutions, and not to civil lawsuits
for damages. Van Tu v. Kosters, #02-4209, 364 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2004).
[N/R]
Claim against sheriff for alleged unlawful
arrest and confinement accrued, for statute of limitations purposes, when
the plaintiff was arrested for criminal trespass, when he was never charged
or prosecuted for the offense, and the plaintiff's lawsuit was therefore
properly dismissed as barred by a two-year statute of limitations. Dopp
v. Rask, No. 03-3150, 91 Fed. Appx. 79 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Publication of newspaper article about murder
of government informant did not provide his estate notice of a possible
claim that the murder was caused by three FBI agents divulging the informant's
identity to members of organized crime, so that the statute of limitations
did not begin to run on the estate's federal civil rights claim. Trial
court denies motion to dismiss lawsuit on the basis of statute of limitations,
which did not begin to run until the plaintiffs knew or should have known,
of both the death and the alleged factual cause of the death. Castucci
v. United States, 311 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D. Mass. 2004). [N/R]
While the statute of limitations for an arrestee's
false arrest Fourth Amendment claim would normally start running from the
date of the arrest, a federal appeals court rules that if plaintiff was
arrested and prosecuted solely on the basis of narcotics "planted"
by the arresting officers, the statute would not start to run until the
charges were dismissed. Wiley v. City of Chicago, #03-1490, 361 F.3d 994,
rehearing denied, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 7456 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Jun]
Plaintiff in excessive force and false arrest
lawsuit against officers was not entitled to an extension of the applicable
statute of limitations based on court clerk's alleged failure to respond
to his request about the status of his case, when the case was initially
dismissed by the court because of the plaintiff's failure to pay the filing
fee. Summary judgment was properly entered in favor of the defendants when
the plaintiff re-filed the case over a year after its dismissal, which
was six months after the statute of limitations expired. Campbell v. Kelly,
#03-3170, 87 Fed. Appx. 234 (3d Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Statute of limitations barred motorist's
civil rights claim arising out of alleged "high-risk" vehicle
stop. Motorist's motion to extend time to file complaint was timely, but
plaintiff failed to have summons to be served with order extending time
issued until after limitations period had already expired. Spencer v. Town
of Chapel Hill, 290 F. Supp. 2d 655 (M.D.N.C. 2003). [N/R]
Claims which accrued over four years ago
based on Native American's arrest following a "prayer march"
were barred by a Nebraska state statute of limitations. Poor Bear v. Nesbitt,
300 F. Supp. 2d 904 (D. Neb. 2004). [N/R]
A three-year statute of limitations under
New York state law for alleged constitutional violations in connection
with the arrest of a minor did not start to run until the plaintiff turned
18, so that her claim was timely filed, and would not be dismissed. Perez
v. County of Nassau, 294 F. Supp. 2d 386 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Statute of limitations barred defamation
claims brought by grand jury witness against deputy district attorney and
county based on statements made to author of book allegedly falsely describing
her as a "felony probationer." The time within which to bring
the defamation lawsuit started to run, at the latest, when the book was
published and distributed to the public, and was not extended based on
the fact that the plaintiff allegedly did not discover that the material
was in the book until she subsequently read it. Shively v. Bozanich, No.
S094467, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 576, 80 P.3d 676 (Cal. 2003). [N/R]
In a lawsuit brought by the family of an
man shot and killed by gang members after it was allegedly negligently
revealed that he was an FBI informant, the right to bring the lawsuit
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671-2680, accrued at
the latest on the date when family members attended hearings at which the
relationship between FBI agents and gang members was revealed and widely
reported in the media. Accordingly, the court holds that the lawsuit should
be dismissed as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.
McIntyre v. United States, 254 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D. Mass. 2003). [N/R]
Arrestee's malicious prosecution claim was
barred by a one-year statute of limitations for claims against a municipality.
The cause of action against the city accrued, and one-year time period
began to run when the charges against the arrestee were first "stricken
with leave to reinstate," not when the 160-day time period for reinstating
the charges expired. Ferguson v. City of Chicago, #1-02-2463, 795 N.E.2d
984 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Father's claim that he was falsely imprisoned
in his hotel room by police who surrounded it and demanded, without justification,
that he release his children, was barred by one-year statute of limitations
when he failed to file lawsuit until two years and seven months had elapsed
from the incident. Southern v. Jones, No. 2002-CP-01027-COA, 851 So. 2d
395 (Miss. App. 2003). [N/R]
Vehicle owner's claim for alleged unreasonable
seizure of her vehicle accrued, for purposes of a three year statute of
limitations on the date that she realized that her vehicle had been seized,
rather than a later date when she obtained clear title to the vehicle.
Lawsuit was therefore time-barred. Jonker v. Kelley, 268 F. Supp. 2d 81
(D. Mass. 2003). [N/R]
New Jersey's two-year statute of limitations
on the filing of a federal civil rights lawsuit began to run on the day
that a police officer took his neighbor's son into custody and to the police
station for throwing rocks and dirt into the officer's swimming pool, even
if the plaintiffs did not then know their "legal rights," since
they did know that the incident took place. Simone v. Narducci, 262 F.
Supp. 2d 381 (D.N.J. 2003). [N/R]
Arrestee's civil
rights complaint, in restating the legal standard for supervisory liability
and then alleging that the supervisor failed to train and supervise officers,
was insufficient to state a claim for supervisory liability for officers'
alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution of plaintiff, when there
were no facts alleged to show that the defendant police superintendent
had notice of the officers' purported misconduct or to connect his conduct
to their actions. Also, as a matter of federal law, the fact that the year
that the plaintiff's claim accrued was a leap year, with 366 rather than
365 days did not entitle him to an extra day to file his complaint to comply
with a one-year statute of limitations, when the incident occurred past
the month of February. Rodriguez Esteras v. Solivan Diaz, 266 F. Supp.
2d 270 (D. Puerto Rico 2003). [N/R]
In the absence of an express written waiver
of the deadline to bring a case to trial within a California statutory
five-year time limit, the deadline to do so would not be extended. In this
case, the plaintiffs in a civil rights/wrongful death lawsuit over the
shooting of their child, in stipulating to a continuation of the trial
date to a date within the five year time period did not enter into an agreement
with the defendants that extended the deadline beyond the five years. Court
also rejects argument that the death of an attorney for a defendant police
officer made bringing the plaintiff's case to trial within the five years
"impracticable," extending the deadline. Lawsuit was properly
dismissed, therefore, for failure to bring the case to trial in a timely
manner. Sanchez v. City of Los Angeles, No. B157711, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d
869 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Arrestee's federal civil rights claims for
an alleged unconstitutional stop, arrest, and use of force accrued on the
date they occurred, so that his claims were time barred by a two year New
Jersey statute of limitations. Wilson v. Healy, No. 02-1862, 63 Fed. Appx.
613 (3rd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Arrestee's state law false arrest and intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims accrued on the date of his arrest
and his federal civil rights claim for arrest without probable cause accrued,
at the latest, on the date he was sentenced, rather than on the date that
his conviction was subsequently invalidated nine years later. Arrestee's
claims were all time-barred under two year Illinois statute of limitations.
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), holding
that a federal civil rights claim for damages attributable to an unconstitutional
conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence
has been invalidated did not apply to claims for damages resulting from
false arrest not made pursuant to a warrant, the court stated, citing Snodderly
v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2001).
Day v. Conwell, 244 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
Statute of limitations on former prisoner's
civil rights claim against police officers for allegedly coercing a witness
to falsely testify against him in a murder case was not tolled (extended)
under Illinois law by either his incarceration or the finding that he had
a mental disability for purposes of Social Security benefits (when there
was no showing that he was unable to manage his own affairs). Chatmon v.
Easton, #02-2377, 56 Fed. Appx. 261 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Statute of limitations started running on
billiard hall owner's federal civil rights claim at the time that a trial
court dismissed a prosecution against him for violating an ordinance prohibiting
minors from being on his premises. (His lawsuit claimed, among other things,
that the application of the ordinance violated equal protection of the
law, since it was only enforced against for-profit, privately owned billiard
rooms and not against city-owned, public recreation centers). The city,
by appealing the dismissal, did not engaged in a "continuing violation"
which would toll (extend) the limitations period. Lawsuit was properly
dismissed as time-barred. Trzebuckowski v. City of Cleveland, #01-3509,
319 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Three year statute of limitations for both
Maryland state and federal malicious prosecution claims by inmate wrongfully
incarcerated for rape and murder started to run on the date that the criminal
proceedings terminated in his favor, but the claims for false arrest and
imprisonment accrued as of the date of the original arrest. Gray v. Maryland,
228 F. Supp. 2d 628 (D. Md. 2002). [N/R]
D.C. statute of limitations on arrestee's
false imprisonment and excessive force claims was not tolled (extended)
by his subsequent arrest on unrelated charges two weeks after his release,
or by his subsequent imprisonment on those charges. Arrestee actually initially
filed a federal civil rights lawsuit over the first incident after the
second arrest, but withdrew it, waiting five years to re-file it. Arnold
v. District of Columbia, 211 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
Plaintiff who settled his excessive force
claim against four officers for a small sum 35 years ago, allegedly in
exchange for the dropping of criminal charges against him, could not pursue
a new lawsuit now on the basis of affidavits from one of the officers recanting
his version of the incident and stating that all four officers lied in
their testimony. Neither federal nor New York state law provided a basis
for extending the statute of limitations. Pearl v. City of Long Beach,
#01-7914, 296 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Nov]
Lawsuit for defamation against officer, based
on his alleged phone call to arrestee's employer, was dismissed as time-barred
under an Illinois one-year statute of limitations, but the plaintiff was
allowed to conduct further discovery to determine the exact date of the
alleged call. Stobinske-Sawyer v. Village of Alsip, 188 F. Supp. 2d 915
(N.D. Ill. 2002). [N/R]
An arrestee had to file his false arrest lawsuit
within the applicable two year statute of limitations, despite the fact
that the federal court would not have acted on his claim while his state
criminal appeal arising out of the same incident was pending, since the
cause of action for wrongful arrest accrued at the time of the arrest.
Lawsuit filed after two year period was properly dismissed. Nesbitt v.
City of Champaign, #01-3163, 34 Fed. Appx. 226 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Arrestee bringing a personal injury action
under Mississippi state law against city and police officer was entitled
to the benefit of an amendment to the Tort Claims Act, Miss. Code Ann..
Sec. 11-46-11(3), increasing the statute of limitations period which was
enacted at a time when the claim was pending, so long as the claim was
not already time-barred at the time of the amendment. Tie-Reace Hollingsworth
v. City of Laurel, No. 2000-CA-01462-SCT, 808 So. 2d 950 (Miss. 2002).
[N/R]
Malicious prosecution claims against officers,
based on arrest pursuant to warrant, were not time-barred by Indiana's
two-year statute of limitations since the claims did not accrue until the
criminal prosecution was dismissed, rather than at the time of the arrest.
Appeals court still upholds dismissal of claims against officers, however,
in the absence of any allegation that they played an "essential or
influential" role in obtaining the warrant or indictment. Snodderly
v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, No. 99-3688, 239 F.3d 892 (7th
Cir. 2001). [N/R]
Woman's claim that she had been sexually
assaulted by a police officer when she was twelve years old accrued under
New York law when she became an adult, so that the statute of limitations
on all claims expired three years after she became an adult. Paige v. Police
Dept. of City of Schenectady, No. 00-9584, 264 F.3d 197 (2nd Cir. 2001).
[N/R]
Plaintiff's false arrest lawsuit, filed twenty-nine
months after his arrest, was not barred by two year statute of limitations,
since his right to bring the lawsuit did not accrue until the criminal
prosecution against him was dismissed. Pascual v. Matsumura, No. CIV. 99-00706,
165 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D. Hawaii 2001). [N/R]
345:133 Georgia appeals court rules that
false arrest lawsuit was filed within the two year statute of limitations
when it was delivered to the court office on the second anniversary of
the arrest, but stamped "filed" on the next day. Reese v. City
of Atlanta, No. A00A2562, 545 S.E.2d 96 (Ga. App. 2001).
[N/R] Claim for false arrest accrued on the
date of the arrest and not on the date the plaintiff was acquitted on the
charge for which he was arrested. Laurino v. Tate, #99- 3170, 220 F.3d
1213 (10th Cir. 2000).
331:102 California's one-year statute of
limitations was tolled in federal civil rights lawsuit over search warrant
obtained with false statements during the entire pendency of state and
federal prosecutions against the arrestee; California tolling statute applied
to federal prosecutions despite its language only mentioning proceedings
in state court. Harned v. Landahl, 88 F.Supp. 2d 1118 (E.D. Cal. 2000).
333:134 Running of one year statute of limitations
to bring a federal civil rights claim over alleged political discrimination
in revocation of store's firearms sales license and raid on store accrued
on the day of the raid and a lawsuit filed 23 years after the fact was
time barred even if plaintiffs claimed they did not learn the reason for
the raid until later. Ramos v. Roman, 83 F.Supp. 2d 233 (D. Puerto Rico
2000).
334:149 False arrest and malicious prosecution
claims against officers were time barred under Illinois law when filed
more than a year after the time the criminal case against the plaintiff
had been dismissed; dismissal with "leave to reinstate" did not,
in any event, constitute a final disposition of the case in favor of the
criminal defendant, as required to support a malicious prosecution claim.
Woodard v. Eubanks, 94 F.Supp. 2d 940 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
326:25 Federal appeals court rules that federal
civil rights claim for illegal search of home only accrued after criminal
charges against homeowner were dismissed when an award of damages for illegal
search would necessarily imply invalidity of any potential conviction;
one- year statute of limitations ran from date of dismissal rather than
date of search. Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan, #98-5451, 182 F.3d 391 (6th Cir.
1999).
EDITOR'S NOTE: For other decisions applying
the rule in Heck to certain pre-conviction situations, see Smith v. Holtz,
87 F.3d 108 (3d Cir. 1996) (statute of limitations did not begin to run
until plaintiff's murder conviction was reversed on appeal); and Covington
v. City of New York, #96-2026, 171 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1999), (agreeing with
Third Circuit that Heck rule is applicable to accrual of claims that, if
successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of a potential conviction
on a pending criminal proceeding).
[N/R] Claims for excessive use of force and
lack of probable cause for arrest were barred by Massachusetts three-year
statute of limitations. Nieves v. McSweeney, 73 F.Supp. 2d 98 (D. Mass.
1999).
[N/R] California statute of limitations on
federal civil rights claim was extended as a result of arrestee's incarceration.
Ellis v. City of San Diego, Calif., No. 97- 55649, 176 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir.
1999).
[N/R] If success on plaintiff's federal civil
rights claim would necessarily have implied the invalidity of any conviction
resulting from his arest, then his false arrest claim could not be pursued
until after the prosecution against him was dismissed, so that the statute
of limitations in New York did not begin to run until that time. Covington
v. City of New York, No. 96-2026, 171 F.3d 117 (2nd Cir. 1999).
322:151 Federal appeals court rules that
lawsuit over man's ejection from city council meeting was properly found
to be time barred by California one-year statute of limitations; separate
statute of limitations, providing up to two years to bring suit when damage
claims are first presented to public entity, had no applicability to federal
civil rights action. Silva v. Crain, #98-15281, 169 F.3d 608 (9th Cir.
1999).
320:117 One-year statute of limitations on
civil rights false arrest and malicious prosecution claims in California
did not begin to run until arrestee's conviction was overturned, but excessive
force claim could have been asserted earlier; excessive force claim therefore
was time barred, but false arrest/malicious prosecution claims were not.
Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, No. 96-55268, 96- 55431, 159 F.3d 374
(9th Cir. 1998).
318:85 Two-year personal injury statute of
limitations was correct Illinois statute for federal civil rights claim,
rather than five-year "catchall" statute plaintiff in excessive
force case argued should be applied. Ashafa v. City of Chicago, #97-2594,
146 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 1998).
315:43 Arrestee whose convictions for armed
robbery and murder were overturned on appeal because he was arrested without
probable cause could not sue arresting officers for malicious prosecution
when he did not claim that officers did anything improper to further his
prosecution following his arrest. Sneed v. Rybicki, #97-2256, 146 F.3d
478 (7th Cir. 1998).
314:23 Two-year statute of limitations applied
to false imprisonment lawsuit in Virginia, while one-year statute of limitations
applied to defamation claim. Jordan v. Shands, 500 S.E.2d 215 (Va. 1998).
302:20 D.C. Court of Appeals overturns $500,000
excessive force award against District as time barred by one year statute
of limitations; arrestee's release from custody, even if erroneous, started
running of one year time period and his rearrest later on other charges
did not then extend the time during which he could file his suit. District
of Columbia v. Tinker, 691 A.2d 57 (D.C. App. 1997).
306:85 Day on which federal civil rights
action accrued because man's family learned that he was shot and killed
by police did not count towards 365-day statute of limitations under Puerto
Rican law; the next day was the first day for purposes of calculating the
time limit. Carreras-Rosa v. Alves-Cruz, 127 F.3d 172 (1st Cir. 1997).
308:120 Two year statute of limitations on
malicious prosecution claim began to run when magistrate dismissed case
against arrestee, despite the fact that criminal charges against him could
have been reinstated during a subsequent four year period; lawsuit brought
three years later was time-barred under Georgia law. Waters v. Walton,
483 S.E.2d 133 (Ga. App. 1997).
308:120 Federal appeals court rules that
arrestee could have immediately pursued his claims of Fourth Amendment
violations in his arrest, the obtaining of his confession (later suppressed),
and the alleged use of excessive force against him, and need not wait until
his later acquittal; lawsuit filed after retrial and acquittal was therefore
time-barred. Gonzalez v. Entress, 133 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 1998).
293:69 Alabama Supreme Court rules that federal
civil rights suit against city was barred by two-year state statute of
limitations; rejects argument that defendants' alleged wrongful conduct,
causing wrongful arrest and imprisonment of plaintiff, continued during
entire period that plaintiff was in jail Jennings v. City of Huntsville,
677 So.2d 228 (Ala 1996).
295:100 Federal civil rights lawsuit over
New York officer's off-duty shooting of resident was barred by state three-year
statute of limitations Baker v. New York City, 934 F.Supp. 533 (E.D.N.Y.
1996).
298:151 Kansas arrestee's claim that he was
"negligently arrested" 28 days after an arrest warrant was withdrawn
was, in "substance", a false arrest claim barred by a one-year
statute of limitations, rather than a negligence claim governed by a twoyear
limitations period Brown v. State of Kansas, 927 P.2d 938 (Kan 1996).
298:152 One year statute of limitations on
federal civil rights lawsuit in Tennessee began to run on date that shooting
by police took place, and expired on the same calendar date one year later
Merriweather v. City of Memphis, 107 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 1997).
{N/R} Federal civil rights claim based on
malicious prosecution did not accrue until after state Supreme Court ordered
that murder charges against plaintiff be dismissed Smith v. Holtz, 87 F.3d
108 (3rd Cir. 1996).
{N/R} Arrestee's federal civil rights claim
accrued on date of arrest when he claimed warrantless arrest without probable
cause; claim did not accrue until criminal prosecution was terminated in
arrestee's favor when he claimed malicious prosecution Brooks v. City of
Winston- Salem, 85 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 1996).
278:22 Three year statute of limitations
began to run on malicious prosecution claim from the time the charges against
the plaintiff were finally dismissed, not from the time of the arrest Murphy
v. Lynn, 53 F.3d 547 (2nd Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Malicious Prosecution]
278:23 California state one-year statute
of limitations was extended while plaintiff was a minor; suit filed three
years after arrest, but within one year of plaintiff becoming an adult
was not time-barred Huntington Park, City of, v. Superior Court (Flores),
41 Cal.Rptr.2d 68 (Cal App. 1995).
281:70 One year statute of limitations did
not bar federal civil rights lawsuit over allegedly false arrests with
warrants brought more than one year after arrests but less than one year
after acquittals; federal appeals court finds suit over alleged unlawful
arrests made pursuant to warrants more analogous to malicious prosecution
than false arrest claims, and time period did not begin to run until date
of acquittals Webb v. Haas, 665 A.2d 1005 (Me 1995). [Cross-reference:
Defenses: Qualified (Good- Faith). Immunity]
281:71 State trooper's alleged fraudulent
concealment of the fact that he had seen disabled vehicle at an earlier
time and had failed to inspect it defeated two year statute of limitations
defense in Maine civil rights lawsuit by estate of deceased motorist; trooper
was not entitled to qualified immunity on claim that his alleged "obstruction
of justice" in filing false reports deprived estate of decedent of
constitutional right of access to courts Webb v. Haas, 665 A.2d 1005 (Me
1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity]
282:88 Federal court rules that complaint
was filed within the statute of limitations when placed in clerk of the
court's post office box at night on the last day one year statute of limitations
would run, despite the fact that the clerk's office had closed hours earlier;
attorney had intended to file complaint before office closed, but his computer
printer malfunctioned Turner v. City of Newport, 887 F.Supp. 149 (E.D.Ky
1995).
282:88 Three year statute of limitations
applied to civil rights claims against both sheriff and other county employees
under Massachusetts law, despite specific state statute specifying four
year time period for certain claims against sheriff King v. Sheriff of
Franklin County, 38 Mass App. Ct 925, 646 N.E.2d 417 (1995).
286:151 Virginia Supreme Court rules that
the absolute maximum time within which the executor of a decedent's estate
must qualify as such and file a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the estate
is three and a half years; executor's appointment after that time did not
"relate back" to validate the filing of a suit after that time
had expired Douglas v. Chesterfield County Police Dept, 467 S.E.2d 474
(Va 1996).
{N/R} Complaint was not filed, for statute
of limitations period, until clerk of court actually received it, as opposed
to date it was mailed or date when incomplete copy of complaint was faxed
to clerk McIntosh v. Antonino, 71 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 1995).
265:5 Colorado Supreme Court rules that three-year
statute of limitations, rather than one-year statute of limitations, applied
to suit against sheriff and sheriff's deputy for pedestrian's alleged injuries
in accident with vehicle driven by deputy Dawson v. Reider, 872 P.2d 212
(Colo 1994).
265:5 Michigan court holds that pretrial
detention in county jail did not constitute "imprisonment" under
state statute extending the statute of limitations for lawsuits by prisoners
Evans v. Hebert, 513 NW2d 165 (Mich App. 1994).
266:21 Civil rights claim for wrongful conviction
and sentence did not begin to accrue until sentence was invalidated; trial
court therefore erred in ruling suit was barred by one-year statute of
limitations without first determining whether sentence had been invalidated,
and if so, when Guzman-Rivera v. Rivera- Cruz, 29 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 1994).
267:38 California statute extending the statute
of limitations for filing a civil rights complaint during period of incarceration
applied from the time of plaintiff's arrest through his period of imprisonment
after conviction when he had been in continuous custody; federal appeals
court reinstates excessive force suit filed by prisoner dismissed by trial
court Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1994).
267:38 Federal appeals court rules that Utah
statute establishing a two-year statute of limitations for federal civil
rights cases only would not be applied; four-year "residual"
statute of limitations for personal injuries generally applied; legislature
could not "usurp" federal law by lowering applicable time for
bringing federal civil rights claims only Arnold v. Duchesne County, 26
F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 1994).
269:70 Arrestee's civil rights suit over
alleged misconduct surrounding a lineup was barred by NY's three-year statute
of limitations Veal v. Geraci, 23 F.3d 722 (2nd Cir. 1994).
270:87 Alabama Supreme Court rules that dismissal
of federal civil rights lawsuit as time-barred under statute of limitations
did not bar state court lawsuit for false imprisonment, which has a longer
statute of limitations under state law Sims v. Geohagan, 641 So.2d 1237
(Ala 1994).
{N/R} Kansas two-year statute of limitations
barred claims of constitutional violations by individual state and county
officials Oyler v. Finney, 870 F.Supp. 1018 (D.Kan 1994).
Civil rights suit against FBI agent was barred
under California four-year statute of limitations Gerritsen v. Consulado
General De Mexico, 989 F.2d 340 (9th Cir. 1993).
Facts in complaint, including prior pursuit
of administrative and state court remedy, justified "tolling"
or expansion of statute of limitations period under California state law
for federal law for federal civil rights lawsuit Cervantes v. City of San
Diego, 5 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1993).
California law stating that statute of limitations
shall be "tolled" or extended on civil damage lawsuit when criminal
charges are pending did not apply to civil rights lawsuit against federal
law enforcement officers Matthews v. Macanas, 990 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1993).
Arrestee's pursuing of state habeas corpus
remedies tolled or extended the time for bringing a federal civil rights
lawsuit under Louisiana state law Burge v. Parish of St Tammany, 996 F.2d
786 (5th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff arrestee's false arrest and false
imprisonment claims were barred by Puerto Rico's state of limitations PerezRuiz
v. Crespo- Guillen, 847 F.Supp. 1 (D.Puerto Rico 1993).
Federal appeals court rules that civil rights
complaints filed by prisoners acting without attorneys will be considered
filed when given to prison authorities for forwarding to a court, rather
than when received by the court Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir.
1993).
DC's three-year statute of limitations is
applicable to federal civil rights lawsuits; woman's suit against police
for alleged warrantless search of her residence, filed almost eight years
after incident, was time-barred Rivers v. Montgomery, 842 F.Supp. 1 (DDC
1993).
North Carolina Supreme Court rules that three-year,
rather than one-year, statute of limitations applies to lawsuits against
police officers for assault and false arrest Fowler v. Valencourt, 435
S.E.2d 530 (N.C. 1993).
Nebraska Supreme Court rules that four-year,
rather than two-year, statute of limitations governs suits against officers
in that state for actions taken prior to May 13, 1987 Gatewood v. Powell,
511 N.W.2d 159 (Neb App. 1993).
Update: Alabama Supreme Court issues revised
opinion, still holding that state's two-year statute of limitations barred
civil rights suit for damages by man whose cash funds were seized by officers
arresting him for alleged participation in drug transaction Woods v. Reeves,
628 So.2d 563 (Ala 1993).
Alabama Supreme Court holds that state's
two-year statute of limitations barred civil rights suit for damages by
man whose cash funds were seized by officers arresting him for alleged
participation in drug transaction; plaintiff was, however, entitled to
return of funds because no formal forfeiture proceeding concerning funds
was ever instituted Woods v. Reeves, 621 So.2d 672 (Ala 1993). Arrestee's
false arrest civil rights lawsuit, filed after his criminal conviction
was reversed on appeal, was barred by New York's three-year statute of
limitations; limitations period was not extended by arrestee's incarceration,
and began to run from the date of his arrest, rather than from the date
of the reversal of his conviction Woods v. Candela, 825 F.Supp. 43 (S.D.N.Y.
1993).
Two-year statute of limitations specifically
adopted by Utah legislature to limit time for filing federal civil rights
lawsuits in the state applied, rather than four-year general statute of
limitations for personal injury claims Arnold v. Duchesne County, 810 F.Supp.
1239 (D.Utah 1993).
Student arrested in 1970 Vietnam war demonstration
could sue officer and city for malicious prosecution almost twenty years
later when newly discovered photographic evidence resulted in overturning
of his prior conviction for assaulting an officer and prosecutor's dismissal
of criminal charges against him; federal civil rights claim, however, was
barred by three year statute of limitations Emory v. Logan, 801 F.Supp.
899 (D.Mass 1992).
When California statute of limitations in
shooting case did not start to run on state law claims until after administrative
complaints were denied, plaintiffs could also wait to bring federal civil
rights suit in order to bring state and federal claims at the same time
Hood v. City of Los Angeles, 804 F.Supp. 65 (CD Cal 1992).
Negligence lawsuit filed against off-duty
police officer for his K-9 dog's attack on a female child was barred by
Colorado statute of limitations when filed more than a year after the incident;
dog was only present because of defendant's capacity as a police officer,
so statute limited t claims against police in their official capacity applied
Kilewer v. Sopata, 797 F.Supp. 1569 (D.Colo 1992).
Arrestee's civil rights suit complaining
about the search of his residence during his arrest was barred under Alabama's
statute of limitations when filed more than two years after the incident
Holland v. Barton, 600 So.2d 233 (Ala 1992).
Pending of criminal proceedings did not toll
the New Jersey
statute of limitations for bringing a civil
rights lawsuit; filing a precomplaint motion to perpetuate testimony did
not serve as functional equivalent of filing a complaint for purposes of
statute Byrd v. Manning, 601 A.2d 770 (NJ Super AD 1992).
While Illinois two-year statute of limitations
applied to detainee's civil rights claim of police beating after traffic
stop, the limitations period might be extended if officers "affirmatively
misled" the plaintiff about their participation in the alleged attack
Smith v. City of Chicago Heights, 951 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1992).
Federal appeals court holds that U.S. supreme
Court decision on applicable statute of limitations in civil rights cases
does not apply retroactively to bar arrestee's suit against officers for
alleged misconduct during arrest McKissick v. Busby, 936 F.2d 520 (11th
Cir. 1991).
Special NY statute of limitations applying
only to suits against municipalities, did not apply to federal civil rights
claim; longer general personal injury statute was instead applicable Meiselman
v. Richardson, 743 F.Supp. 143 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).
Cause of action for false arrest accrued
at the time of the arrest, not several years later when arrestee allegedly
discovered that arrest was based on computer error; false arrest lawsuit
was time-barred Diaz v. Metro-Dade Police Dept, 557 So.2d 608 (Fla App.
1990).
Pre-trial detainee is not "imprisoned"
for purposes of tolling Michigan statute of limitations for bringing a
federal civil rights suit Jones v. City of Hamtrmck, 905 F.2d 908 (6th
Cir. 1990).
Mississippi federal court applies U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Owens v. Okure retroactively Flowers v. Dickens, 741
F.Supp. 112 (S.D.Miss 1990).
Federal appeals court reinstates false arrest
lawsuit by the "Hillside Strangler" because of state statute
tolling the statute of limitations during imprisonment Bianchi v. Bellingham
Police Dept, 909 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1990).
Two-year statute of limitations on claims
against government bodies, barring claim for alleged negligent and reckless
shooting of youth by police officer did not violate equal protection, despite
general three-year statute of limitations on all other wrongful death claims
Van Wormer v. City of Salem, 788 P.2d 443 (Or 1990).
Mississippi's six-year residual limitations
period, rather than one-year statute for intentional torts, applies to
civil rights actions Thomas v. City of New Albany, 901 F.2d 476 (5th Cir.
1990).
Arrestee's civil rights claims were barred
by Arizona's two year statute of limitations Krug v. Imbordino, 896 F.2d
395 (9th Cir. 1990).
New Jersey's two year limitations period
on personal injuries, rather than six year limit on other claims, applies
to Section 1983 civil rights suits Cito v. Bridgewater Twp Police Dept,
892 F.2d 23 (3d Cir. 1989).
Federal appeals courts rule on tolling of
Kentucky, Texas and Michigan statutes of limitations during imprisonment
Bell v. Cooper, 881 F.2d 257 (6th Cir. 1989); Burrell v. Newsome, 883 F.2d
416 (5th Cir. 1989); Perreault v. Hostetler, 884 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1989).
Illinois two year statute of limitations
applies to federal civil rights claims Kalimara v. Illinois Department
of Corrections, 879 F.2d 276 (7th Cir. 1989).
Court again attempts to clarify limitations
period for civil rights actions Owens v. Okure, 109 S.Ct. 573 (1989).