42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 claims use the forum state’s personal injury limitations period, subject to applicable state tolling rules.

Chatman v. County of San Mateo · filed 2009-12-14

The district court properly dismissed Chatman’s claims because they are time-barred. See id. at 927 (explaining that the applicable statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, and setting forth California’s statute of limitations); Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 654 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that, under California law, the limitations period is tolled for two years for prisoners serving less than a life sentence).

Section 1983 claims use the forum state’s personal injury limitations period because the section has no federal statute of limitations.

Pickett v. State of Texas · filed 2009-12-18

Because there is no federal statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, the forum state’s personal-injury limitations period applies.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Erickson v. City of Auburn · filed 2010-01-05

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the City because the claims against the City are time-barred.

In Pennsylvania, actions under Section 1983 have a two-year limitations period, and a claimant cannot use mandamus to pursue an untimely civil rights claim.

Petsinger v. Department of Labor & Industry, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation · filed 2010-01-21

Petsinger’s petition also exceeds the two-year statute of limitations applied in Pennsylvania for bringing actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Because Petsinger filed his petition well beyond the applicable filing periods for a civil service appeal, a discrimination claim or a civil rights action, Petsinger may not resort to mandamus to advance these claims.

Section 1983 claims brought in New York are subject to a three-year limitations period borrowed from state law.

Baroor v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2010-01-21

“The statute of limitations for claims brought under Section 1983 is governed by state law, and in this case is the three-year period for personal injury actions under New York State law.” ... Except for her wrongful retirement claim, each alleged discrete act of discrimination accrued more than three years prior to her filing this action.

A Section 1983 claim filed after the applicable limitations period fails when the plaintiff cannot show a triable tolling issue.

Turner v. City and County of Honolulu · filed 2010-01-22

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on statute of limitations grounds because Turner failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the limitations period was tolled after July 2004, and he did not file this action until more than two years later.

A § 1983 action is time-barred when filed after the applicable limitations and statutory tolling periods expire.

Ernest Cox, Jr. v. Harris · filed 2010-01-22

Ernest Lee Cox, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action ... alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. ... The district court properly dismissed the action as time-barred because Cox filed suit after the applicable statute of limitations and statutory tolling period had expired.

The court dismissed federal civil rights claims that accrued more than two years before filing as untimely.

Lopes v. Freewheelers · filed 2010-01-22

The district court properly dismissed Lopes’s federal civil rights and state law claims on statute of limitations grounds because the claims accrued more than two years before Lopes filed this action.

The limitations period for a prisoner’s § 1983 claim is tolled while administrative appeals are pending.

Carper v. Washington State Department of Corrections · filed 2010-01-22

The record shows that the action against the remaining defendants was not time-barred because Carper was entitled to tolling during the pendency of his administrative appeals.

Section 1983 claims in New Jersey are subject to the state's two-year personal-injury limitations period.

Baker v. Wittevrongel · filed 2010-01-29

We have held that New Jersey’s two-year limitations period on personal injury actions, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, applies to civil rights claims under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for deprivations of constitutional or legal rights under color of state law, subject to a three-year limitations period in New York.

St. Louis v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp. · filed 2010-02-01

Section 1983 prohibits any deprivation of constitutional or legal rights under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In New York State, the statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is three years.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Bush v. City of Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Department · filed 2010-02-04

A § 1983 claim must comply with the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Section 1983 claims use the limitations period for analogous state causes of action and accrue when the plaintiff knew or should have known the rights were violated.

Murray v. DiGuglielmo · filed 2010-02-04

While 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not set forth a limitations period, “federal courts must look to the statute of limitations governing analogous state causes of actions.” ... A § 1983 cause of action accrues on the date when a plaintiff knew or should have known his rights had been violated.

Section 1983 remains available for ongoing systemic violations of federal law and allows a timely claim while the violation continues.

Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California · filed 2010-02-08

Section 1983 “is presumptively available to remedy a state’s ongoing violation of federal law.” ... A university’s ongoing and intentional failure to provide equal athletic opportunities for women is a systemic violation. As the plaintiffs were students and therefore subject to the policy that allegedly discriminated on the basis of sex at the time they filed their complaint, their § 1983 claim is not time-barred.

Section 1983 claims use the applicable state personal injury limitations period, while accrual is governed by federal law.

McNamara v. City of Nashua · filed 2010-02-09

Under federal law, “[t]he limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis for his claim.” ... McNamara did not sue until August, 2008, however, which was several years beyond the expiration of the three-year limitations period. Therefore, his § 1983 claim is time-barred.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state's personal injury statute of limitations and accrue when supporting facts are or should be apparent.

Lyons v. Kyner · filed 2010-02-10

The statute of limitations for claims under § 1983 “is drawn from the personal-injury statute of the state in which the federal district court sits.” ... Thus, we apply Kansas’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions to Lyons’s § 1983 claim and his § 1985(3) claim. ... Here, Lyons’s § 1983 claim arose during the February 22, 2005 trial when the defendants allegedly deprived Lyons of several of his constitutional rights which resulted in an unlawful judgment. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the applicable two-year statute of limitations had already run on Lyons’s § 1983 and § 1985(3) claims by the time Lyons filed his complaint in January 2009.

Section 1983 claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, with an insanity toll unavailable without facts showing inability to function.

Luciano v. City of New York · filed 2010-02-16

The parties agree that the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is three years from the time the cause of action accrues, and that, here, the cause of action accrued when plaintiff was involuntarily hospitalized on May 27, 2005. ... Thus, plaintiff was required under the statute to file his complaint by May 27, 2008. ... This, combined with plaintiffs failure to allege any facts relating to an inability to function, and the implausible nature of a sudden inability to function while out of the Hospital after being mentally stable within the Hospital, lead me to conclude that plaintiff is not entitled to the toll. Thus, plaintiffs claims are untimely and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Section 1983 claims in New Jersey are subject to the state's two-year personal-injury limitations period.

Agcaoili v. Thayer · filed 2010-02-16

The District Court correctly concluded that New Jersey’s two-year limitations period for personal injury claims applies to Agcaoili’s claims for harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination, retaliation, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. See N.J. Stat. 2A:14-2; ... see also Cito v. Bridgewater Twp. Police Dep’t, 892 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir.1989) (New Jersey’s two-year limitations period for personal injury actions applies to civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985).

Section 1983 borrows the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury torts.

Teng v. Town of Kensington et al. · filed 2010-02-17

The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim “is that which the State [where the cause of action arose] provides for personal-injury torts.” Wallace v . Kato, 549 U.S. 3 8 4 , 387 (2007).

Section 1983 claims use the forum state's personal injury statute of limitations.

Hancock v. Hood · filed 2010-02-18

Even assuming that Hancock has raised a valid claim for relief, any federal or state law claim would be governed by the statute of limitations applicable to general personal injuries in the forum state. ... In Alabama, this statute of limitations is two (2) years. Ala. Code § 6-2-38 (2007); Dukes v. Smitherman, 32 F.3d 535, 537 (11th Cir.1994)(Held that, in Alabama, “§ 1983 claims were subject to a two year limitations period.”).

Section 1983 borrows the most analogous state statute of limitations because it has no limitations period of its own.

Hecking v. Barger, et al. · filed 2010-02-23

Section 1983 does not include its own limitations period, and in the absence of a federal limitations provision governing a federal cause of action, courts first look to the most analogous state statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims in Texas are subject to a two-year limitations period, and prior federal lawsuits dismissed for want of prosecution and improper joinder do not toll it.

Charles Allen, Sr. v. Quarterman · filed 2010-02-25

We agree with the district court that Allen’s complaint was filed after the expiration of the two-year limitations period and that his two prior federal lawsuits, dismissed for want of prosecution and improper joinder, did not operate to toll the limitations period.

Section 1983 claims filed in Colorado use the state's two-year personal injury limitations period.

Thorpe v. Ancell · filed 2010-02-26

State law governs statute of limitations issues in § 1983 actions and “that limitation period is set by the personal injury statute in the state where the cause of action accrues.” See Roberts v. Barreras, 484 F.3d 1236, 1238, 1240 (10th Cir. 2007). The limitations period for a personal injury action in Colorado is two years.

Section 1983 claims in the District of Columbia have a three-year statute of limitations.

Moore v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-02-26

In our Circuit, the statute of limitations for both § 1981 and § 1983 claims is three years.

Section 1983 claims in the District of Columbia have a three-year statute of limitations.

Moore v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-03-01

In our Circuit, the statute of limitations for both § 1981 and § 1983 claims is three years.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations; California’s period is two years.

Glenn v. McGrath · filed 2010-03-02

Moreover, to the extent that Glenn challenges the 2002 rules violation report, his challenge is time-barred. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that in section 1983 actions courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and noting California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims).

Section 1983 claims may be dismissed as time-barred.

Eggers v. United States Attorney General · filed 2010-03-02

The district court properly dismissed Eggers’s section 1983 and Bivens claims as time-barred.

The limitations period for a Section 1983 claim begins when the wrongful act causes damage, even if the plaintiff does not yet know the full extent of the damage.

Leroy Willis, Jr. v. Kollender · filed 2010-03-02

The district court properly concluded that Willis’s action was time-barred. ... Contrary to Willis’s contentions, the statute of limitations began to run when the wrongful act results in damages, not when the full extent of those damages are understood.

Section 1983 claims in New York have a three-year limitations period.

Lewis v. City of New York · filed 2010-03-03

In New York, the statute of limitations for § 1983 actions is three years. ... Since plaintiffs cause of action accrued on April 9, 2005, plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint to add a new defendant is time-barred unless the amendment relates back to the date of the original complaint.

Section 1983 claims arising in Pennsylvania are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Alexander v. Fletcher · filed 2010-03-04

The statute of limitations for claims arising under § 1983 in Pennsylvania is two years.

Section 1983 actions use the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Ball v. State of Oregon · filed 2010-03-09

The district court properly determined that Ball’s due process claim is time- barred. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (statute of limitations governing personal injury actions is two years); Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara, 344 F.3d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The applicable statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions.”); Montana Pole & Treating Plant v. I.F. Laucks & Co., 993 F.2d 676, 678 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he critical determination of when an action accrues is knowledge of the facts essential to the cause of action.”).

Section 1983 claims filed in Maryland are subject to the state’s three-year personal injury limitations period.

Bosse v. Baltimore County · filed 2010-03-10

But, the statute of limitations for a “tort action for the recovery of damages for personal injuries” applies to § 1983 claims. ... The statute of limitations for a personal injury tort action in Maryland is three years. ... Therefore, the limitations period has run insofar as the claim pertains to Plaintiff's speech in 2000.

Section 1983 claims borrow the forum state’s personal-injury limitations period.

Young v. Adams · filed 2010-03-11

Because there is no federal statute of limitations period for civil rights actions brought under § 1983, a federal court borrows the forum state’s statute of limitations period for personal injuries.

Section 1983 claims in Virginia are subject to the state's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.

ASWAN v. Commonwealth of Virginia · filed 2010-03-15

However, this claim, too, meets a time bar because Virginia's two-year statute of limitations on personal injury claims applies to Section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims in Virginia are subject to the state’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.

A Society Without a Name for People Without a Home Millennium-Future-Present v. Virginia · filed 2010-03-15

However, this claim, too, meets a time bar because Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations on personal injury claims applies to Section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims use the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Bailey v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2010-03-19

Claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject to the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Section 1983 claims in Pennsylvania are subject to a two-year tort limitations period that barred claims arising on the dates of the alleged assaults.

Santos v. Gainey · filed 2010-03-24

The District Court properly determined that Santos’s causes of action accrued on the actual dates of the alleged assaults, and properly applied the governing law in concluding that the actions were barred by the two-year statutes of limitation applicable to torts in Pennsylvania.

Section 1983 actions arising in New York State have a three-year limitations period.

Rochester v. Sixth Precinct Police Station · filed 2010-03-25

Section 1983 actions arising in New York State are governed by a three-year period of limitations.

Section 1983 claims brought in federal court in New York have a three-year limitations period.

Bradley v. RELL · filed 2010-03-26

The statutory limitations period for an action brought in federal court in New York arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is three years.

In New York, Section 1983 claims have a three-year limitations period running from accrual.

Cortes v. City of New York · filed 2010-03-30

In New York, the statute of limitations for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is three years from the date of accrual.

Federal courts apply New York tolling rules to § 1983 claims filed in New York.

Carmichael v. Captain Hobbs Correction Officer · filed 2010-03-30

In §1983 claims filed in New York, federal courts are required to apply the New York rule for tolling the statute of limitations.

In New York, § 1983 claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Village of Wesley Hills · filed 2010-03-31

In any event, Plaintiffs could not pursue claims based on alleged false representations made in 1997 and 2004 under §§ 1982, 1983, and 1985 as such claims would be time barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations.

A § 1983 claim accrues when facts supporting it are or should be apparent, and Utah’s four-year statute of limitations applies.

Wood v. Utah Board of Pardons & Parole · filed 2010-04-12

“A civil rights action accrues when facts that would support a cause of action are or should be apparent.” ... Therefore, we conclude that, at the latest, Mr. Wood’s cause of action regarding his ex post facto claim accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run, on June 30, 2000. ... Applying Utah’s four-year statute of limitations, see Fratus, 49 F.3d at 675, Mr. Wood had at most until June 30, 2004, to file a lawsuit asserting his ex post facto claim.

Linked, continuing violations can toll the limitations period for a § 1983 claim until the last violation.

Summit at Pomona, Ltd. v. Village of Pomona · filed 2010-04-13

The plaintiffs established that the defendants’ alleged violations of their constitutional rights of repeated, unjustified demands for money in lieu of parkland, were linked together and continuing, such that the statute of limitations for the 42 USC § 1983 claim was tolled up until the last violation, which occurred within the three-year limitations period (see Deepwells Estates Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Head of Harbor, 973 F Supp 338, 345-347 [1997]).

Section 1983 claims have a three-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury.

Rimany v. Town of Dover · filed 2010-04-20

Under such circumstances, the earliest possible time that the plaintiffs could have known of the injury that is the basis of their 42 USC § 1983 claim was January 2005. The plaintiffs commenced this action on November 7, 2007, well within the three-year limitations period. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the plaintiffs’ 42 USC § 1983 claim, and their concomitant 42 USC § 1988 claim, were subject to dismissal insofar as asserted against the Town on the ground that those claims are time-barred.

Section 1983 actions use the applicable state statute of limitations for constitutional personal injury claims.

Harris v. Homecomings Financial Services, Inc./Bank One · filed 2010-04-26

Pennsylvania has a two-year limitation period for fraud (and conspiracy to commit fraud) claims under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524(7), a two-year limitation period for abuse of process claims, see id. at § 5524(1), and a two-year limitation period would also apply to a constitutional personal injury claim, see id. at § 5524(2); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (state statute of limitations applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 allows an Equal Protection claim to proceed under Alabama’s two-year personal-injury limitations period.

Zeigler v. Alabama Department of Human Resources · filed 2010-04-29

Although this same claim asserted under Title VII is time barred, no such timing problem exists under § 1983. In Alabama, there is a two-year statute of limitations for claims brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as enforced through § 1983.

Section 1983 claims brought in Texas are subject to a two-year limitations period.

Gibson v. Houston Launch Pad · filed 2010-05-12

Gibson’s § 1983, ADA, and DTPA claims all were subject to a two-year limitations period.

Section 1983 claims are time-barred when the events at issue occurred outside the three-year limitations period.

Sanders v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2010-05-12

We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough January 30, 2009 order, noting in particular that all of Sanders’s claims are time-barred because the events in question occurred outside the three-year limitations period.

A Section 1983 claim barred by the applicable statute of limitations may be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).

Johnson v. Mott · filed 2010-05-18

However, we agree with the district court’s statute-of-limitations analysis, and we hold that the dismissal with prejudice was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Section 1983 has no limitations period, so courts use the state’s general personal injury limitations period.

Gorelik v. Costin, Pa-C · filed 2010-05-20

As 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not include a limitations period, courts have held that the relevant limitations period is that which governs general personal injury claims in the state where the claim arose.

Section 1983 claims brought in New York have a three-year statute of limitations.

Mancuso v. Hynes · filed 2010-05-27

His complaint, filed in 2007, thus falls well outside the three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims brought in New York.

In Texas, a Section 1983 claim has a two-year statute of limitations.

Schneider v. Harris County Sheriff's Department, William M. Thomas, and Mitchel Hatcher · filed 2010-05-27

The statute of limitations in Texas on a section 1983 claim is two years.

Section 1983 claims arising in Ohio must be filed within two years of accrual.

Bard Huntsman v. Perry Local Schools Board of Education · filed 2010-05-28

The applicable statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising in Ohio requires that claims be filed within two years of their accrual.

Section 1983 claims borrow the forum state's personal injury limitations period, while federal law determines when those claims accrue.

Medina v. Toledo · filed 2010-06-09

Claims under Section 1983 borrow from the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims. ... Even though the Court borrows from Puerto Rico’s statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims, “[i]t is federal law, however, that determines when the statute of limitations begins to run.”

A § 1983 action filed in Washington is subject to a three-year limitations period.

Phillips v. Maggie Miller · filed 2010-06-21

The district court properly concluded that Phillips’s action is barred by the applicable three-year limitations period.

A Texas prisoner’s § 1983 claim is subject to a two-year limitations period that begins when the prisoner learns the facts supporting the claim.

Lee v. Karriker · filed 2010-06-24

Yet Lee filed this federal complaint on June 14, 2008, well after the two-year statute of limitations had run.

Section 1983 actions arising in New York have a three-year limitations period; later state court proceedings do not extend that period for a discrete alleged violation.

Corona Realty Holding, LLC v. Town of North Hempstead · filed 2010-06-25

There is a three-year statute of limitations for actions brought under Section 1983 that arise in New York. ... Here, the alleged discrimination was a discrete act that occurred in 2004; the subsequent state court proceedings were not part of a policy or practice of discrimination by defendants. Therefore, we agree with the district court that Corona’s Section 1983 claims are time-barred.

Section 1983 claims brought in Puerto Rico have a one-year limitations period.

Asociación de Suscripción Conjunta del Seguro de Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Juarbe-Jiménez · filed 2010-06-25

Actions brought pursuant to Section 1983 in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico carry a one-year statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims arising in New Mexico are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Lymon v. Aramark Corp. · filed 2010-07-07

Lymon did not move to amend to assert these claims against Wexford until April 23, 2009, three years and nine months after his injury in the prison kitchen. His federal claims, brought under § 1983, are therefore untimely.

Section 1983 claims based on an employment termination accrue no later than the termination date and are subject to the applicable limitations period.

N'Jai v. Manuel Zuniga, Jr. · filed 2010-07-08

N’Jai’s claims against Wilkinsburg and the Wilkinsburg Individuals under §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986 are time-barred because they accrued, at the latest, in September 2005, when she was terminated from her job.

A § 1983 claim arising in Florida must be filed within four years after it accrues.

Brown v. City of Miami · filed 2010-07-09

A plaintiff must commence a § 1983 claim arising in Florida within four years of when the cause of action accrues.

A § 1983 complaint is untimely if filed more than two years after the plaintiff learns the facts giving rise to the claim, plus any time tolled during grievance proceedings.

Edwards v. Miller · filed 2010-07-14

Because he did not file his complaint within two-years plus the 87-day tolled period of Febru- ary 9, 2007, the complaint was untimely filed.

Section 1983 has no federal statute of limitations; courts borrow the forum state’s general personal injury limitations period.

Walter Johnson, Jr. v. Lamartiniere · filed 2010-07-19

Because there is no federal statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to § 1983, federal courts borrow the forum state’s general personal injury limitations period.

Section 1983 claims use a federal rule to determine when the statute of limitations begins to run.

Bruce v. Correctional Medical Services · filed 2010-07-21

“The date on which the statute of limitations begins to run in a § 1983 action is a question of federal law.” Eidson v. State of Tenn. Dep’t of Children’s Servs., 510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

Section 1983 borrows state statutes of limitations and related tolling rules, including applicable state savings statutes and equitable tolling.

Granger v. Rauch · filed 2010-07-22

Section 1983 borrows not only the state statute of limitations for personal-injury claims but also all related state tolling rules.

Section 1983 claims use the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions, which is two years in Oregon.

Bailey v. Shelton · filed 2010-07-23

We affirm as to defendants Shelton and Whelan because Bailey failed to present any evidence that these defendants were involved in the denial of medical treatment within the two years before the lawsuit was filed. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the statute of limitations for section 1983 lawsuits is the state law statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and that Oregon’s statute of limitations for such actions is two years).

A Section 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or should have known that his constitutional rights were violated.

Peal v. Lee · filed 2010-07-30

The statute of limitations in section 1983 claims accrues when one knows or should have known that his constitutional rights have been violated. Lawshe v. Simpson, 16 F.3d 1475, 1478 (7th Cir. 1994). The record makes it clear that Peal knew, or should have known, of any potential retaliation by Cascio long before he claims to have learned of it in January 2009. We see no reason why the statute of limitations should have been tolled here and Peal does not offer any reasons arguing otherwise. Peal’s claim, therefore, was time-barred.

In Colorado § 1983 actions, pursuing administrative remedies does not automatically toll the limitations period; equitable tolling requires diligent pursuit of the claim.

Braxton v. Zavaras · filed 2010-08-02

In a § 1983 action, state law governs issues regarding the statute of limitations and tolling, although federal law governs the determination of when a § 1983 action accrues. ... Accordingly, we conclude that under Colorado law, the statute of limitations is not automatically tolled whenever an individual pursues administrative remedies. ... Because plaintiffs did not pursue their claims with diligence, they are not entitled to equitable tolling.

Section 1983 claims in Puerto Rico have a one-year limitations period; older alleged acts remain time-barred when the continuing violation doctrine does not apply.

Ayala-Sepulveda v. Municipality of San German · filed 2010-08-02

A claim under § 1983 borrows its limitations period from state law and, therefore, carries a one-year statute of limitations in Puerto Rico. ... Because the court finds that there is no evidence and because the above mentioned incidents, as alleged, are not enough to demonstrate a hostile work environment, the continuing violation doctrine does not apply. Therefore, all of Plaintiffs alleged incidents of discrimination on the basis of sex that occurred more than one year prior to his May 26, 2009 filing are considered time-barred.

Section 1983 claims for recurring unlawful fees may recover payments made within the applicable three-year limitations period when each collection is a continuing wrong.

Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary · filed 2010-08-03

Here, similar to our Supreme Court’s holding in Faulkenbury, the acceptance of the illegal fees by the Town was a continuing violation, and plaintiffs are entitled to seek the recovery of the fees dating back to 27 September 2004, three years from the filing of their complaint, pursuant to their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 causes of action.

Section 1983 has no statute of limitations, so federal courts borrow the forum state’s limitations period for personal injury claims.

Holmes v. MELEADY · filed 2010-08-05

Section 1983 does not contain a statute of limitations and federal courts therefore borrow the forum state’s limitation period for personal injury tort claims.

Section 1983 claims based on discrete acts cannot use the continuing violation doctrine to revive untimely claims.

Trent v. Anderson · filed 2010-08-10

Because Plaintiff alleges discrete acts, albeit many discrete acts, he cannot rely on the doctrine of “continuing violation” to save his untimely federal claims.

A § 1983 claim arising from a property demolition accrues no earlier than the demolition, when the owner suffers the injury.

Gallant v. City of Fitchburg · filed 2010-08-13

In this case, that injury did not occur until plaintiffs property was demolished, which occurred no earlier than December 2006. Because the complaint was filed within three years of the date of the injury, it is timely.

In Washington, a Section 1983 claim has a three-year limitations period that begins when the claimant knows or has reason to know of the injury underlying the claim.

Segaline v. STATE, DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUS. · filed 2010-08-19

The statute of limitations for Segaline's § 1983 claim is three years from the time the claimant knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.

Section 1983 claims have a three-year limitations period that begins when the claimant knows or has reason to know of the injury underlying the claim.

Segaline v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2010-08-19

The statute of limitations for Segaline’s § 1983 claim is three years from the time the claimant knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.

Section 1983 claims use the applicable state statute of limitations; in Oklahoma, the period is two years.

Barnett v. Ray · filed 2010-08-23

“In a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we apply the applicable state statute of limitations.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005). ... We therefore apply Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations for “injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated.” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 95(3); see also Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1522 (10th Cir. 1988).

Ohio’s minority tolling provision applies to § 1983 claims because it is consistent with the statute’s goals.

Bishop v. CHILDREN'S CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENTAL · filed 2010-08-25

Thus, Ohio’s tolling provisions apply to CB’s claims ... because the minority tolling statute is not inconsistent with § 1983, and the Rehabilitation Act’s goal of protecting individuals with handicaps from discrimination, see Baker v. Bd. of Regents, 991 F.2d 628, 631-32 (10th Cir. 1993), is not undermined by allowing minority tolling.

Ohio’s minority tolling statute applies to § 1983 claims because it is consistent with the section’s goals.

Bishop v. Children's Center for Developmental Enrichment · filed 2010-08-25

The chief goals of § 1983 are compensation and deterrence, and its subsidiary goals are uniformity and federalism. ... Applying Ohio’s minority tolling statute does not undermine either of these goals.

Section 1983 claims arising in Michigan have a three-year limitations period.

Searcy v. County of Oakland · filed 2010-08-30

However, it is well settled that the statute of limitations for claims filed in Michigan based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is three years.

Section 1983 claims use the personal injury limitations period of the state where the claim arose.

McPherson v. United States · filed 2010-09-02

The statute of limitations for personal injury actions in the state where McPherson’s § 1983 claim arose supplies the applicable limitations period.

For a § 1983 challenge to a method of execution, adopting an unchanged lethal injection protocol as a regulation does not restart the statute of limitations.

Wilson v. Rees · filed 2010-09-03

Here, the state merely adopted its preexisting protocol as a regulation, making no material changes to the method of execution. ... Therefore, Bowling and its aftermath do not disrupt the district court’s holding that Wilson’s complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state's general personal injury statute of limitations.

Lee v. City of Corpus Christi · filed 2010-09-03

The statute of limitations for a suit brought under § 1983 is determined by the general statute of limitations governing personal injuries in the forum state.

Section 1983 actions use the forum state’s limitations period for personal injury claims.

Partovi v. Galoski · filed 2010-09-09

Federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims to actions pursuant to § 1983 and Bivens.

Section 1983 claims in Wyoming are subject to a four-year limitations period.

Palmer v. Buge · filed 2010-09-13

The statutory limitations period in Wyoming for claims under § 1983 is four years.

A Section 1983 complaint filed outside the applicable limitations period may be dismissed when there is no basis for equitable tolling.

Batemon v. Pine Bluff Police Department · filed 2010-09-17

... we agree with the district court that Batemon’s complaint was filed outside the applicable limitations period and that he presented no basis for equitable tolling.

A Section 1983 claim has a three-year statute of limitations in New York.

Greenfield v. Town of Babylon Department of Assessment · filed 2010-09-28

In any event, Greenfield also asserted a claim pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, which has a three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214; ... [1988]).

Section 1983 claims use the forum state's general personal injury limitations period.

Brockman v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 2010-09-30

Since there is no federal statute of limitations for ADA or § 1983 claims, we look to the general personal injury limitations period provided by the forum state, which in this case is Texas’s two-year limitations period.

A § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury and who inflicted it.

Bricker v. Cobb County Government & Personnel · filed 2010-10-01

A cause of action under § 1983 accrues, and thereby sets the limitations clock running, when the plaintiff knows or should know (1) that she has suffered the injury that forms the basis of her complaint and (2) who has inflicted the injury.

Section 1983 claims brought in federal court in Indiana have the same two-year limitations period as personal-injury actions.

Bedree v. Bedree · filed 2010-10-01

In any case, the statute of limitations for claims brought in federal court in Indiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the same as for personal-injury actions, which in Indiana, is two years.

Section 1983 claims in Illinois have a two-year limitations period.

McDonough v. City of Chicago · filed 2010-09-29

The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is two years.

Section 1983 actions use the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Ashcroft v. State of Oregon · filed 2010-10-06

The district court properly dismissed Douglas Allen Ashcroft’s claims as time-barred. ... “For actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions[.]”

The limitations period for a § 1983 action comes from state law.

Hammonds v. Attorney Mark Shellnut · filed 2010-10-12

Federal courts look to state law to determine the applicable statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims filed in New York have a three-year limitations period.

Storman v. Klein · filed 2010-10-12

The limitations period for a § 1983 claim in New York is three years.

Section 1983 actions in Oklahoma are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Hill v. State Of Oklahoma · filed 2010-10-21

The Oklahoma statute of limitations applying to § 1983 actions is two years.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state’s limitations period for personal-injury actions.

Gee v. Pacheco · filed 2010-10-26

The forum state’s statute of limitations for personal-injury actions sets the limitations period for § 1983 actions.

Section 1983 claims filed in Washington are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

John Corrigan, Sr. v. D. Dale · filed 2010-10-27

The district court properly dismissed Corrigan’s claims because his action was filed after the applicable three-year statute of limitations had expired. See Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that the statute of limitations for a § 1983 action filed in Washington “is the three-year limitation of Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2)”).

A § 1983 claim must be filed within the applicable statute of limitations.

Booher v. Trexler · filed 2010-11-02

Upon de novo review, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the district court’s conclusion that Booher’s § 1983 claim against Officer Trexler was not timely filed.

In Texas, a § 1983 false imprisonment claim is subject to a two-year limitations period.

Billy McMillan, Jr. v. Richmond · filed 2010-11-02

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that McMillan's complaint for false imprisonment be dismissed as time barred under the Texas two-year statute of limitations that applies to § 1983 actions. ... Accordingly, we AFFIRM the dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim based on false imprisonment and REMAND this case to the district court to permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint to state his best § 1983 claim based on malicious prosecution and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

An inmate’s choice of an alternative execution method does not stop or reset the limitations period for a § 1983 challenge to the original method.

West v. Gayle Ray · filed 2010-11-04

An inmate cannot stop or reset that clock by later choosing an alternate method of execution, as such a choice does not impact the question of whether, on the accrual date, he knew or should have known whether the method of execution was in existence and could have chosen to seek relief.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Robert Mumma, II v. High Spec Inc · filed 2010-11-05

The statute of limitations for any § 1983 claim is the forum state’s limitations statute for personal injury actions.

A Section 1983 action may be dismissed when filed outside the applicable limitations period.

Wright v. Doe · filed 2010-11-08

We agree that Wright’s action was filed outside the applicable period of limitations.

A § 1983 First Amendment claim based on expulsion accrues when the plaintiff learns of the decision and is barred if filed after the applicable two-year limitations period.

Coates v. Natale · filed 2010-11-08

First, Coates’s First Amendment claim accrued when she learned of the Defendants’ decision to expel her, and because she filed her complaint more than two years after this date, the district court did not err in determining that Coates’s First Amendment claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims brought in New York have a three-year limitations period borrowed from the state’s general personal injury statute.

Mixon v. Sedita · filed 2010-11-22

I agree with defendants that plaintiffs claims, both in the original and in the proposed amended complaints, are time barred. “A three-year statute of limitations, derived from New York’s general personal injury statute of limitations, is applied to § 1983 actions brought in New York.”

Section 1983 actions in California use the state’s personal injury limitations period, which California law tolls for two years for prisoners.

Shamburger v. Kirkland · filed 2010-11-23

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shamburger’s due process claim challenging his initial placement in administrative segregation as time-barred. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (California personal injury statute of limitations applies to section 1983 actions); Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1994) (under California law, statute of limitations tolled for two years for prisoners).

Section 1983 claims use the forum state’s limitations period for personal-injury actions.

Gee v. Pacheco · filed 2010-12-02

The forum state’s statute of limitations for personal-injury actions sets the limitations period for § 1983 actions.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state’s personal-injury limitations period and tolling rules.

Troy Temple v. . Montgomery · filed 2010-12-03

The district court properly concluded that Temple’s action against Yuba City, Sutter County, Sutter County prosecutors, and certain employees of the California State Prison system, deemed filed on December 16, 2004, was time-barred.

Section 1983 claims in Puerto Rico have a one-year limitations period, and each discrete denial of reclassification is subject to that period independently.

Davila-Feliciano v. Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund Corp. · filed 2010-12-06

A failure to promote is a prototypical discrete discriminatory action and, for that reason, Davila’s allegations regarding ignored requests for reclassification are each independently subject to the year-long statute of limitations period for section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims in California use the state’s personal injury limitations period.

Mansourian v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Ca · filed 2010-12-08

The applicable statute of limitations for plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim is the same as California’s personal injury statute of limitations.

Section 1983 actions brought in Texas borrow the state's two-year limitations period for personal injury claims.

Hernandez v. Thomson · filed 2010-12-13

The statute of limitations applicable in the instant case is borrowed from that applicable to Texas personal injury claims, which is two years.

A § 1983 challenge to a method of execution is time-barred in Tennessee if filed more than one year after the claim accrues, whether accrual is measured from final direct review or adoption of the execution method.

Irick v. Ray · filed 2010-12-15

The district court properly applied our analysis in Cooey II to determine that the statute of limitations began to run either in 1989 when Plaintiff’s direct review process was final, or in 2000 when lethal injection became the presumptive method of execution in Tennessee. Regardless of which date we use, Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred.

State law governs tolling of the limitations period for a Section 1983 claim.

Breedlove v. Costner · filed 2010-12-16

“State law governs the application of tolling in a federal civil rights action.” ... None of the grounds for equitable tolling exist in this case.

In New York, § 1983 claims are governed by the three-year limitations period for personal injury actions.

Kevilly v. New York · filed 2010-12-21

It is well-established that New York’s three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules (“N.Y. C.P.L.R.”) § 214(5), not the one-year limitations period for actions arising from false imprisonment, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215(3), governs § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims filed in Tennessee have a one-year statute of limitations.

Hebron v. Shelby County Government · filed 2010-12-22

Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations applies to the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims use the personal injury limitations period of the state where the claim accrues.

Pittman v. Conerly · filed 2010-12-23

Also, the district court correctly concluded that the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is the same as the statute of limitations in a personal injury action in the state in which the claim accrues.

Section 1983 claims brought in Pennsylvania are subject to a two-year limitations period.

Chambers v. Hathaway · filed 2011-01-04

A two-year statute of limitations is applied to § 1983 claims brought in Pennsylvania.

Section 1983 claims filed in Delaware are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Dixon v. Minner · filed 2011-01-05

Insofar as Dixon’s pro se complaint can be read liberally to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such as a claim of deliberate indifference to a past serious medical need for drug treatment, see Complaint at ¶ 31, the same two-year statute of limitations period applies.

Section 1983 claims use the personal injury statute of limitations of the jurisdiction where the claim arose.

Herrera v. Toth · filed 2011-01-06

As we noted in McPherson, a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is subject to the same statute of limitations as a personal injury claim in the state where the claim arose.

Section 1983 claims in New Hampshire have a three-year limitations period under state law, while federal law determines when the claim accrues.

McNamara v. City of Nashua · filed 2011-01-13

The state three-year statute also governs the section 1983 claim, Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 250 (1989); Harrington v. City of Nashua, 610 F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 2010); although federal law governs the time of accrual, Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007), McNamara makes nothing of this.

Section 1983 claims in California are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Chatman v. Adams · filed 2011-01-18

Chatman is correct, as the State concedes, that California’s new two-year statute of limitations applies to his claims.

Section 1983 civil rights claims in New Jersey are subject to the state’s two-year limitations period for personal injury actions.

Jenkins Jr. v. State of NJ · filed 2011-01-24

Because Jenkins’ claims of failure to investigate arise from events occurring over twelve years ago, affording such an opportunity would have been futile. See id.; Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120, 126 n.4 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting New Jersey’s two-year limitations period on personal injury actions applies to civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 claims borrow the applicable state personal injury limitations period and accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury.

Ford v. Washington · filed 2011-01-24

The district court properly dismissed Ford’s claim challenging the PSO designation because it is barred by the statute of limitations. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Cholla Ready Mix, 382 F.3d at 974 (explaining that, for section 1983 claims, federal courts borrow the applicable state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims). Contrary to Ford’s contention, this claim accrued at the time of the PSO designation, and not when defendant Washington refused to remove the designation or when the Oregon Supreme Court decided V.L.Y. v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 106 P.3d 145 (Or. 2005).

A government defendant may waive the statute of limitations in a § 1983 action.

Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2011-01-28

A statute of limitations is subject to waiver, including by a government defendant in a § 1983 case.

In Puerto Rico, a § 1983 equal protection claim uses the local one-year limitations period.

Cintron-Lorenzo v. Fondo Del Seguro Del Estado · filed 2011-02-04

It is undisputed that the limitation period for an equal protection claim under § 1983 is borrowed from local law and is one year in Puerto Rico.

Section 1983 claims in Pennsylvania are governed by the state’s two-year limitations period for personal injury claims.

Hakim Bond v. VisionQuest · filed 2011-02-07

Bond‟s § 1983 and supplemental state-law claims are governed by Pennsylvania‟s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.

A § 1983 action uses the forum state’s general personal-injury limitations period, rather than its limitations period for suits against public officers.

Bebout v. Thomas · filed 2011-02-09

A court entertaining an action under § 1983, however, must apply the forum state’s general statute of limitations for personal-injury suits, Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989); Hoagland v. Town of Clear Lake, 415 F.3d 693, 699-700 (7th Cir.2005), not its statute of limitations for wrongs committed by a public officer, Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 279, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985).

Section 1983 claims filed in Texas are subject to a two-year limitations period.

Raul Aleman, Jr. v. San Antonio Police Department · filed 2011-02-11

However, it is well-settled that the limitations period applicable to § 1983 cases in the forum state of Texas is the two-year period provided by Texas law.

Section 1983 claims filed in Pennsylvania are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Louis Singleton, Jr. v. DA Philadelphia · filed 2011-02-14

Singleton’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

In Tennessee, § 1983 claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

Trice v. McEachen · filed 2011-02-16

As Defendants point out, in light of the one-year statute of limitations that applies to § 1983 actions in this state, Trice’s claims cannot be based upon the Defendants’ interview of Trice or the written statement resulting therefrom, as that encounter took place in November 2008.

A § 1983 claim filed in Massachusetts state court is subject to the three-year limitations period for personal injury torts.

Grady v. Lariviere · filed 2011-02-17

The complaint also seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983,... a federal claim that was properly filed within the three-year statute of limitations for torts resulting in personal injury, G.L.c. 260, §2A.

Section 1983 suits filed in California are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Pierce v. Woodford · filed 2011-02-28

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Grewel and Luca because the statute of limitations had expired. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2004) (two-year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 suits in California).

Section 1983 claims are governed by the applicable state statute of limitations.

McGrew v. McQueen · filed 2011-03-09

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are governed by the applicable state statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims use the state personal injury statute of limitations, which is two years in Pennsylvania.

Adderly v. Ferrier · filed 2011-03-10

In § 1983 cases, federal courts apply the state personal injury statute of limitations, which is two years in Pennsylvania.

Section 1983 claims in Illinois have a two-year limitations period; a coerced confession claim filed within two years of the confession’s first use is timely.

Williams v. City of Chicago · filed 2011-03-14

Accepting Plaintiffs allegations as true for purposes of this motion, the Court concludes that the coerced confession was first used in the motion to suppress that Plaintiff filed on August 20, 2008. Because Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on April 20, 2010 — less than two years later — Count I of his complaint is not time-barred.

Section 1983 claims in the District of Columbia are subject to the three-year residual personal injury limitations period.

Sykes v. US ATTORNEY FOR THE DIST. OF COLUMBIA · filed 2011-03-16

Likewise, “[t]he Supreme Court has held that in states with multiple statutes of limitations, claims under [42 U.S.C. § ]1983 are governed by the residual or general personal injury statute of limitations (like section 12-301(8)), rather than the statute.of limitations for enumerated intentional torts (like section 12-301(4)).” ... Therefore, all of Plaintiffs claims have a statute of limitations of no greater than three years.

Section 1983 claims use the forum’s general personal injury limitations period, which is three years in the District of Columbia.

Sykes v. United States Attorney for the District of Columbia · filed 2011-03-16

Likewise, “[t]he Supreme Court has held that in states with multiple statutes of limitations, claims under [42 U.S.C. §] 1983 are governed by the residual or general personal injury statute of limitations (like section 12-301(8)), rather than the statute of limitations for enumerated intentional torts (like section 12-301(4)).” Carney v. American Univ., 151 F.3d 1090, 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 243-50 (1989)). Therefore, all of Plaintiff’s claims have a statute of limitations of no greater than three years.

A § 1983 claim may survive a statute of limitations dismissal in part.

Meyerstein v. City of Aspen · filed 2011-03-17

We further conclude that the district court partially erred in holding, as a matter of law, that Meyerstein's cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was time barred.

Section 1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claims begin to accrue when the claimant is detained pursuant to legal process.

Tyrone Green v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2011-03-18

The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim seeking damages for a violation of the Fourth Amendment for false arrest or false imprisonment begins to run “at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process.”

Section 1983 claims must be dismissed when they are time-barred.

Losoya v. Warden Woodford · filed 2011-03-18

To the extent that Losoya’s four remaining claims are based on events prior to February 2001, dismissal was proper because they are time-barred.

Section 1983 claims use the state personal injury statute of limitations, which is two years in Pennsylvania.

Sanders v. Downs · filed 2011-03-22

In § 1983 cases, federal courts apply the state personal injury statute of limitations, which is two years in Pennsylvania.

Section 1983 claims use the applicable state personal injury limitations period, which is one year in Tennessee.

Lyons v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County · filed 2011-03-22

The statute of limitations for an action alleging a violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the applicable state limitations period governing personal injury claims. Tennessee’s limitations period, Tenn.Code Ann. § 28 — 3—104(a)(1), is one year.

Section 1983 false arrest claims in Massachusetts use the state's three-year personal injury limitations period.

Williams v. City of Boston · filed 2011-03-24

Accordingly, the three-year period applies to Williams’ false arrest claim.

Section 1983 claims in California are governed by the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson · filed 2011-03-28

California’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions governs claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims brought in Colorado are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Hull v. COLORADO BD. OF GOVERNORS OF COLORADO · filed 2011-03-28

Therefore, in this case, plaintiff's § 1983 claim is subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims in Colorado are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Hull v. Colorado Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System · filed 2011-03-28

Therefore, in this case, plaintiffs § 1983 claim is subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims in Texas have a two-year limitations period borrowed from the state’s personal injury statute.

Prado v. Fredericksburg Police Department · filed 2011-03-30

Accordingly, the applicable limitations period for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in Texas is the same two-year limitations period for personal injury claims provided in section 16.003(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 1983 claims in Arkansas are subject to the state’s three-year limitations period for personal injury actions.

Brown v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 2011-04-27

Timothy Brown appeals from the district court’s1 dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Upon careful review, ... we conclude that Brown’s claims related to the termination of his parental rights as to three of his children were properly dismissed as untimely.

A § 1983 complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim when the applicable statute of limitations has expired; in Alabama, that period is two years.

Williams v. State of Alabama · filed 2011-04-27

A district court may dismiss a § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim if the action would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

A prisoner in Louisiana has one year from the event complained of to bring a § 1983 action.

Williams v. State of Louisiana · filed 2011-05-12

In Louisiana, a prisoner has one year from the event(s) complained of in which to bring a § 1983 action.

Section 1983 claims arising in Delaware are subject to Delaware’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Simms v. Freeman · filed 2011-05-18

In this case, Simms’s claims were subject to Delaware’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.