CRAIG K. MISMASH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MURRAY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SCOTT ROBINSON, GARY REID, AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 20, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

10th Cir. | 1984-03-30
No. 82-1963
730 F.2d 1366 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 21 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that all section 1983 claims in Utah are subject to the four-year statute of limitations, making Mismash's suit timely.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Mismash sued police detectives for alleged beating and arrest without cause, claiming a due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The in…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

Craig Mismash was allegedly arrested and severely beaten without cause by Scott Robinson and Gary Reid, detectives on the Murray City Police Force. Asserting that this conduct denied him due process,- Mismash brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976) against Robinson, Reid, Murray City, and several unnamed police and city officials who may have authorized the acts complained of. The district court concluded that the suit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

The incident giving rise to this suit occurred on September 1, 1979. Mismash filed his complaint on August 21, 1981, more than one year and less than two years later. The district court applied the one-year limitations period provided by Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-29(4) (1953), which governs “[a]n action for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment or seduction.”

Because Congress has not enacted a statute of limitations expressly applicable to section 1983 claims, the court must adopt the most analogous limitations period provided by state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1976); Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483-84, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1794-95, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980). In Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F. 2d 640 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc), decided this day, we considered the method by which an appropriate state statute is to be selected for section 1983 actions. We concluded as a matter of federal law that all section 1983 claims should be characterized as actions for injury to the rights of another. See id. at 650-51.

No Utah statute of limitations is expressly applicable to actions for injury to the rights of another. Under Utah law, personal torts other than those set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-29(4) (1953) are governed by the four year statute of limitations which applies to “[a]n action for relief not otherwise provided for by law,” id. § 78-12-25(2). See, e.g., Matheson v. Pearson, 619 P. 2d 321 (Utah 1980). Accordingly, we conclude that all section 1983 claims brought in federal court in Utah are subject to the four-year limitations period provided in Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25. Under this statute, Mismash’s suit was timely filed and the judgment for defendants must be reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw