McCormick Barstow :: Unclean hands defense under California law

See: McCormick Barstow :: Unclean hands defense under California law

Read more...

Accural of Statute of Limitations in civil rights/false arrest since Heck v. Humphrey

Accrual of Claims:


The Case: Wallace v. Kato 127 S. Ct. 1091 (2007)

The Question: When does a cause of action accrue for false arrest in a civil rights lawsuit under 42 USC 1983. In this case, where a court of appeal reversed on technical grounds and remands for a new trial, which the prosecution did not pursue ?

More specifically, does Heck v. Humphrey

First, the (Wallace) court states, "While we have never stated so expressly, the accrual date of a §1983 cause of action is a question of federal law that is not resolved by reference to state law."

As such the Court found that the traditional rule of accrual apply. That is to say that the "tort cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations commences to run, when the wrongful act or omission results in damages. "

In this context, the court pointed out that false arrest is a distinct tort, as is malicious prosecution, where the latter requires a judgment overturning a conviction, and the former does not.


At this point the court considered when the "wrongful conduct or omission result in damages" from a false arrest/imprisonment.

And concludes: "false imprisonment consists of detention without legal process, a false imprisonment ends once the victim becomes held pursuant to such process..."
Therefore...

Read more...

Equitable tolling under 42 USC 1985

A review of cases of interest

In 42 U.S.C. 1985, subd(a), relating to "Proceedings in vindication of civil rights", states..., including procedings under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and 1987.

"The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts ... for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty."

Courts have found this applies to federal statutes with no statute of limitation provisions, including 42 U.S.C. Sec 1983 civil rights actions.

Read more...

RE "borrowing" state Statute of Limiations under 42 USC 1988

Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y. v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (1980)

"Under 42 U.S.C. 1988, federal courts are instructed to refer to state statutes when federal law provides no rule of decision for actions brought under 1983, and 1988 authorizes federal courts to disregard an otherwise applicable state rule of law only if the state law is "inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Since Congress did not establish a statute of limitations or a body of tolling rules applicable to federal-court actions under 1983, the analogous state statute of limitations and the coordinate tolling rules are binding rules of law in most cases. This "borrowing" of the state statute of limitations includes rules of tolling unless they are "inconsistent" with federal law."

Read more...