AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Defenses: Statute of Limitations
A lawsuit was filed over the death of a man shot and killed during a law enforcement investigation. The case was dismissed because it was filed after the Virginia state statute of limitations had expired. Upholding the result, a federal appeals court found that undisputed facts placed the plaintiff on objective notice of the need to investigate the shooting. In this case, a witness had informed the plaintiff outlining inconsistencies she believed existed in the file and the plaintiff did not file suit until after the limitations period had expired. Spradling v. Hastings, #17-3573, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 501 (8th Cir.).
A man was shot and killed by police while running down an alley on June 15, 2013. His mother filed a false arrest and excessive force lawsuit against the city and unknown officers on March 23, 2015. Her attorney served a subpoena on the city one week after filing the complaint, requesting the production of reports pertaining to the incident. He advised the city that the documents were needed to identify the unknown officers. On May 26, 2015 the city’s counsel emailed the plaintiff’s attorney reports that identified the officers who shot the decedent. On June 24, 2015, the plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint. The city did not object. An amended complaint, filed July 6, 2015, named the officers. The plaintiff failed to respond to the city’s motion to dismiss and the trial court granted it. A federal appeals court upheld dismissal of claims against the officers as time‐barred. The plaintiff’s claims began to accrue on June 16, 2013 and the limitations period expired on June 16, 2015, eight days before she sought leave to amend. She was not entitled to equitable tolling or equitable estoppel because she had the information essential to amending her complaint. Liberty v. City of Chicago, #15-3444, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 11410 (7th Cir.).
A man sued the U.S. government,
contending that it violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by accusing
him of a crime during a criminal proceeding in which he was not a defendant.
The trial court properly granted the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss
the lawsuit. The claim accrued when the accusation was first made. His mistaken
belief that his claim had not yet accrued until he was either notified that he
would not be indicted (or such an indictment was time barred), the reason he
did not file suit earlier, did not serve to toll (extend) the time period to
sue, so his claims were barred by a six year statute of limitations. Doe
v. United States, #16-20567, 853 F.3d 792 (5th Cir. 2017).
A man
served his full ten year sentence for rape and residential burglary, after
which his conviction was vacated because of newly available DNA evidence. He
sued a police detective involved in his case, accusing him of fabrication of
evidence. Overturning a trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit, a federal
appeals court found that the claim did not accrue until the plaintiff was
acquitted of all charges, so that the lawsuit was filed in a timely fashion
within the applicable three year statute of limitations and was not time
barred. The appeals court did not address the detective's qualified immunity
defense, as the court below had not reached the issue. Bradford v.
Scherschligt, #14-35651, 803 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2015).
A woman claimed that a
state trooper started harassing her in 2007, tailgating her in an off-duty
vehicle, parking behind her, and questioning her about her driving. When the
officer and the female motorist's adult son exchanged heated words, the officer
at first allegedly stated that the motorist would receive an additional ticket
because of her son's statements and then left without issuing any tickets when
the son stated that he would complain to the officer's supervisor. After the
motorist complained abut this, the officer, hours later, arrived at her home
and delivered three tickets. After her son mentioned the alleged harassment at
a restaurant, the trooper, accompanied by a fellow officer, again returned to
the home, resulting in a confrontation with the woman's son-in-law. A federal
appeals court ruled that a First Amendment retaliatory prosecution claim was
time barred as it was filed two years after the tickets were delivered to the
woman, which was the date the claim accrued, rather than the later date of the
trial when she was convicted on the tickets. The trial court erred, however, in
dismissing a Fourth Amendment constructive seizure complaint against the
trooper on the basis that the plaintiff failed to specifically identify in that
claim that she was proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 rather than merely
under the Fourth Amendment. Smith v. Campbell, #14-1468, 782 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir.
2015).
A Marine sergeant was accused of having committed
a sexual assault while on a recruitment detail at a middle school. A lawsuit
was filed against the U.S. government for the sexual assault under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The claim accrued when the plaintiff became aware of
her injury, not when she claimed to have learned of the Marine Corp's
negligence. Since she did not file an administrative claim until four years
after the incident, the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations would ordinarily
bar the claim, but during the appeal of the lawsuit's dismissal, the 9th
Circuit ruled in Wong v. Beebe, #10-36136, 732 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) that
equitable tolling of the statute of limitations was available in FTCA cases.
The appeals court therefore ordered that the trial court hold further
proceedings to consider the plaintiff's equitable tolling arguments. Gallardo
v. United States, #12-55255, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6964 (9th Cir.).
A man arrested for allegedly buying cocaine died
from the effects of cracked ribs he suffered during his arrest, which were
allegedly caused by a police beating. His mother was unable, after his death,
to find an attorney to file her federal civil rights lawsuit, however, as a
police sergeant allegedly came to her home and told her that her son had died
in the street due to a gang dispute over drugs. She was denied access to police
reports about the arrest and an investigation into her son's death. A report
filed in an internal affairs investigation indicating that there may have been
a beating and a "cover-up" of the beating was unavailable to her and
her prospective lawyers. Years later, after the FBI received an anonymous tip
concerning the police beating taking place, and launched an investigation, the
mother filed a lawsuit. The defendants argued that it was barred by the statute
of limitations. Addressing the issue of whether the statute of limitations was
"tolled" (extended) by the alleged cover-up, the appeals court ruled
that she could go ahead with her claim. "Equitable estoppel" applied
in a case where the plaintiff believed that she had a claim for excessive force
but she was "dissuaded from bringing the claim by affirmative
misrepresentations and stonewalling by the police" concerning the
circumstances that led to her son's death. Estate of Amaro v. City of Oakland,
#10-16152, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 15534 (9th Cir.).
Lawsuits filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act
against the federal government claiming it was liable for two deaths because of
the F.B.I.'s thirty-year "alliance" with a mobster-turned-informant
were time-barred under an applicable two-year statute of limitations. The
mobster allegedly ordered the decedents' deaths. The plaintiffs had sufficient
information to assert their claims more than two years before they did so,
based on testimony in a hearing about the federal government's role in the
cases, and media reports of the information. Donahue v. U.S., #09-1950, 2011
U.S. App. Lexis 2644 (1st Cir.).
A former inmate, released from custody after he
was exonerated of a murder that he had previously been convicted of, filed a
lawsuit asserting claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and intentional
infliction of emotion distress. He claimed that his conviction was caused by a
number of acts of police misconduct, including the threatening of witnesses and
the fabricating of evidence. All claims were dismissed as time-barred, under
the theory that they accrued at the time of his arrest, rather than when he was
exonerated. Reversing this result as to the emotional distress claim, a federal
appeals court found that the emotional distress claim was not complete at the
time of his arrest, but rather at the time of his conviction. The conviction
had led to the emotional strain and mental anguish the plaintiff suffered, and
this claim was therefore not time barred under the statute of limitations.
Parish v. City of Elkhart, #09-2056, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15747 (7th Cir.).
A motorist sought to assert a claim for unlawful
racial profiling--selective law enforcement by a New Jersey state trooper. The
plaintiff was a native of Colombia, and the two passengers in his vehicle were
Hispanic. He was stopped by the trooper for alleged speeding and during the
stop, the trooper noticed that a passenger had a white powdery substance in his
mustache, causing the trooper to request consent to search the car, which was
granted, leading to the finding of cocaine in the vehicle, and the motorist's
arrest by a second trooper who arrived on the scene. The motorist was convicted
on the drug charges nine years later, and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
Almost three years later, however, the state moved to vacate his conviction,
stating that "colorable issues of racial profiling" existed at the
time of arrest. Approximately a year and a half later, or fourteen years after
the initial arrest, the motorist sued, asserting claims for false arrest and
selective enforcement. Holding that the motorist's claims were time barred, a
federal appeals court found that the motorist did not have to wait until his
conviction was overturned to bring his lawsuit, since his claim for selective
enforcement, in particular, did not necessarily depend on the invalidity of his
conviction. But his claim did not accrue until he was aware of facts indicating
racial profiling and selective enforcement. In this case, that was at least by
July of 2001, when his attorney became aware of extensive documents describing
the state's alleged selective enforcement practices. Since it was over two
years later that the plaintiff filed his lawsuit, his claims were time barred
by a two-year statute of limitations. Dique v. New Jersey State Police,
#05-1159, 603 F.3d 181 (3rd Cir. 2010).
A nightclub stated viable claims for violation of
Fourth Amendment rights in alleging that officers entered the premises without
a warrant, without probable cause, and for the purpose of investigating
possible drug use there, frisking patrons, handcuffing a number of them without
making arrests, ordering lights turned on at the club, and generally acting in
an "intimidating" way. Claims related to an earlier incident at the
club were time barred as the lawsuit was filed four days after the applicable
two-year statute of limitations expired. The Illusions of the South, Inc. v.
City of Valdosta, #7:07-cv-6, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 27154 (M.D. Ga.).
False arrest lawsuit filed almost four years
after a conviction for possessing a stolen car was set aside was time-barred by
a two year Illinois statute of limitations. Prosecutors in the case were
entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Gordon v. Devine, No. 08C377, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 81234 (N.D. Ill.).
When a police department seized handguns in 1996
following a suicide, the decedent also left a note specifying who he wanted to
have the weapons, a person subsequently named as the co-personal representative
of his estate. One of the weapons was released to someone claiming ownership,
and the others were destroyed in 2003 on the basis that they were unclaimed
property. The estate representative only filed a claim for the guns in 2005,
and she filed a federal lawsuit in 2008, claiming that the police department
breached a duty to notify her concerning the disposition of the weapons. The
court ruled that her claims were barred by a two-year statute of limitations,
and that any "tolling" (extension" of the time limit would only
have applied until the time when she first had the ability to file a claim on
behalf of the estate, following her appointment in 2000. Stone v. Whitman,
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01611, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69178 (D. Colo.).
A man convicted of a sexual assault, and
exonerated when DNA proved that the semen found on the victim's underwear was
not his, presented evidence sufficient to support a jury's verdict in his favor
against a police officer for allegedly violating his due process right by
tampering with or manipulating testimonial evidence and identification, causing
his trial to be unfair. His claim was not time barred because his right to sue
for malicious prosecution only arose after his criminal conviction was set
aside. The Plaintiff was awarded $9,063,000 against the officer, a judgment for
which the city was required to indemnify him. Dominguez v. Hendley, No.
07-1004, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20577 (7th Cir.).
Most of the plaintiff's federal civil rights
claims were time barred by a New Mexico three-year statute of limitations when
they arose out of his arrest, detention, interrogation and release, and he
filed his lawsuit more than three years after his release. The court also found
that one defendant, the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, was
entitled to sovereign immunity on civil rights claims against him. The
plaintiff also did not have standing to assert claims for the alleged
monitoring of other library patrons' use of computers, which were the only
claims not time barred. O'Connor v. St. John's College, No. 07-2225, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 17730 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
The retention of property by police, which was
seized as part of a criminal fraud investigation, did not constitute a
"continuing violation" extending the applicable statute of
limitations on a federal civil rights claim. The applicable statute of
limitations began to run when the property was seized, and the lawsuit was time
barred by a three-year statute of limitations, entitling the defendants to
summary judgment. Herrin v. Dunham, No. 05-10245, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55859
(E.D. Mich.).
Twenty years after an arrestee was convicted of
assault, rape, and robbery, a medical examiner determined, from evidence in a
rape kit, that he was innocent of these offenses. Because the arrestee had
presented an alibi and there was a lack of physical evidence linking him to the
incident, the court ruled that his claim that police officers and prosecutors
pressured eyewitnesses into making false identifications, failed to produce the
rape kit and other exculpatory evidence, and failed to investigate a suspect
named by the victim was sufficient to present a claim that they acted in bad
faith. The plaintiff could proceed with his malicious prosecution claims, and
any claims concerning the rape kit were not time-barred because of the
defendants' alleged deliberate deception in falsely stating that they searched for,
but did not find, the rape kit. Newton v. City of New York, No. 07 Civ. 6211,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 54084 (S.D.N.Y.).
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).