42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 claims use the personal injury limitations period of the state where the federal court sits.

Gregory v. Currituck County · filed 2021-03-05

When adjudicating claims alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, federal courts apply the statute of limitations for personal-injury claims applicable under the law of the state in which the court is located.

Section 1983 claims concerning lost good-time credits may remain timely after the disciplinary sanction is reversed.

Fava v. Ward · filed 2021-03-05

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims related to the loss of good time credits are not time-barred, the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims is without prejudice to repleading.

A § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know that their constitutional rights have been violated.

Adams v. Kowalski · filed 2021-03-08

A §1983 claim begins to accrue “when the plaintiff knows or should know that his or her constitutional rights have been violated.”

Section 1983 takings claims are timely when an act comprising the alleged taking occurs within the three-year limitations period.

335-7 LLC v. City of New York · filed 2021-03-08

Although § 1983 claims are typically governed by a three-year statute of limitations, the Second Circuit has found that as long as one of the acts comprising a taking occurs within the limitations period, the claim is not time-barred. Sherman v. Town of Chester, 752 F.3d 554, 566-67 (2d Cir. 2014). Because Plaintiffs allege that the passage of the 2019 Amendments renders the RSL unconstitutional, an act that is well within the limitations period, their claims are not time-barred.

Section 1983 claims arising in New York have a three-year limitations period, and filing the complaint within that period commences the action.

Yancey v. Pancoe · filed 2021-03-08

“For § 1983 actions arising in New York, the statute of limitations is three years.” ... On its face, Plaintiff’s complaint, filed March 12, 2020, is timely. ... Defendants’ position is flatly contradicted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 which provides that an action is commenced upon filing.

Section 1983 claims borrow the relevant state's personal injury statute of limitations, which is two years in Virginia.

Sirleaf, Jr v. Clarke · filed 2021-03-09

Because there is no explicit statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, courts borrow the personal injury statute of limitations from the relevant state.

Section 1983 actions arising in Wisconsin in 2006 had a six-year limitations period.

Scott v. Evers · filed 2021-03-09

In 2006, the limitations period for §1983 actions arising in Wisconsin was six years.

Section 1983 claims for false arrest and false imprisonment accrue when the plaintiff is detained.

Karsner v. Hardin County, Kentucky · filed 2021-03-09

Thus, with regard to § 1983 claims based upon false arrest and false imprisonment, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the plaintiff is detained.

Section 1983 has no limitations period of its own, so courts apply the limitations period for similar state law claims.

Lafaye v. New Orleans City · filed 2021-03-09

Because § 1983 does not provide a statute of limitations, federal courts apply the limitations period applicable to similar claims under state law.

Section 1983 claims borrow the forum state’s personal injury limitations period, which is three years in Massachusetts.

Branco v. Huard · filed 2021-03-09

To the extent Branco also asserts civil rights violations stemming from the events of April 9, 2016, when adjudicating claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal court “ordinarily must borrow the forum state’s limitation period governing personal injury causes of action.” ... Accordingly, any civil rights violations stemming from the events of April 9, 2016 are also time-barred.

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

Biehner v. City of New York · filed 2021-03-09

The plaintiff had reason to know of the alleged due process violations in 2013, but she filed suit in 2019—significantly more than three years after the claims accrued. Therefore, the plaintiff’s Section 1983 and 1985 claims are time barred.

Section 1983 claims in Iowa are subject to a two-year statute of limitations borrowed from state personal injury law.

Smith v. Miller · filed 2021-03-10

In Iowa, this means Section 1983 actions are subject to a two-year statute-of-limitations.

Section 1983 claims have a two-year limitations period, and a claim filed after that period is untimely unless it relates back to the original complaint.

Friar v. Jeske · filed 2021-03-11

A two-year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims, and plaintiff knew of any injury arising from Moore’s alleged conduct on December 16, 2017, the day of the alleged incident.

Section 1983 false arrest claims in Tennessee have a one-year limitations period.

Martin v. Murfreesboro TN, Rutherford County · filed 2021-03-12

In Tennessee, the statute of limitations for a § 1983 false arrest claim in violation of the Fourth Amendment is one year.

Section 1983 claims have a three-year limitations period and accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the harm.

N.J. v. NYC Department of Education · filed 2021-03-15

The statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims is also three years, Keitt, 882 F. Supp. 2d at 423 (citing Paige v. Police Dep’t, 264 F.3d 197, 199 n.2 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam)), and such claims accrue “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the harm,” Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 871 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1983 claims have a three-year statute of limitations.

Brown v. Wetz · filed 2021-03-15

As a preliminary matter, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 and the NYSHRL is three years.

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

Sekerke v. Hoodenpyle · filed 2021-03-16

The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that a two-year statute of limitations applies to Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff failed to file suit within two years after his claims accrued on September 7, 2015.

Section 1983 claims use the state's personal-injury limitations period and tolling rules; in Indiana, the limitations period is two years.

WARREN v. WELLPATH, LLC · filed 2021-03-16

Suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 use the statute of limitations and tolling rules that states employ for personal-injury claims. In Indiana, the applicable statute of limitations period is two years.

Section 1983 has no explicit statute of limitations, so courts borrow the state limitations period for comparable conduct.

Johnson v. Rominger · filed 2021-03-16

Because there is no explicit statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts borrow the state limitations periods for comparable conduct.

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

Kerr v. Collier · filed 2021-03-16

The statute of limitations for filing any claim under § 1983 is two years.

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

Mulvaney v. Kane · filed 2021-03-17

The statute of limitations on her § 1983 claim is two years.

Section 1983 claims against public officials in Arizona are subject to the state’s two-year limitations period for general personal injury claims.

Mathis v. Dannels · filed 2021-03-17

Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations for general personal injury claims applies to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims brought against public officials.

Section 1983 claims arising from conduct in Massachusetts are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Nelson v. Hull · filed 2021-03-17

As alleged conduct in Massachusetts, claims brought under § 1983 are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims in Oregon borrow the state’s two-year personal injury limitations period and are subject to its discovery rule.

Smith v. City of Dalles · filed 2021-03-17

“It is well-established that claims brought under § 1983 borrow the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims.” ... In Oregon, the personal injury limitations period is two years. ... “Oregon’s discovery rule, however, also applies to claims asserted under § 1983.” ... The Court, therefore, finds that there may be some set of facts that can be proved under the proposed amendment that would constitute a timely and valid Fifth Amendment claim.

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

Mejia v. Moore · filed 2021-03-18

The Texas statute of limitations applicable to section 1983 actions is the two-year limitation found in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.003(a).

Section 1983 claims in New Jersey are subject to the state’s general two-year personal-injury limitations period, even when a longer state-law period applies to sexual-assault claims.

GAVIN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2021-03-18

I agree with this consensus and hold that New Jersey’s two-year limitations period continues to apply to Gavin’s federal claims, despite New Jersey’s subsequent enactment of a longer period for sexual-assault claims like his.

Section 1983 actions have a two-year statute of limitations.

JACKSON v. ROSEN · filed 2021-03-18

The statute of limitations for an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is two years.

In Tennessee, Section 1983 claims for denial of medical treatment are limited to events within one year before the lawsuit was filed.

Whitener v. State of Tennessee · filed 2021-03-18

Further, Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that the Court will only address Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants involved in the alleged denial of his medical treatment for the one-year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit — that is, Defendants involved in the events giving rise to this litigation AFTER December 2019.

Section 1983 claims in Vermont must be filed within three years of accrual.

Hart v. Town of Bradford · filed 2021-03-19

According to the complaint, Mr. Hart claims violations of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (count 1); 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (count 2); 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) (count 3); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (counts 4 and 5); and unspecified “negligence and tort claims” {count 6); “equitable relief’ (count 7); and “gross negligence” (count 8). ... The statute of limitations, 12 V.S.A. § 512, required Mr. Hart’s complaint to be filed within 3 years of the accrual of his claims.

At the time of the events, § 1983 claims in Wisconsin had a six-year limitations period.

Henderson, Titus v. Jess, Cathy · filed 2021-03-19

At the time of the events in question, the statute of limitations for a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Wisconsin was six years.

Section 1983 claims in Washington are subject to a three-year limitations period and applicable state tolling rules.

Warren v. Andrews · filed 2021-03-19

The district court properly dismissed Warren’s action because the complaint was filed more than three years after the accrual of the claims and the operative pleading did not allege facts sufficient to support equitable tolling.

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

Vodicka v. Ermatinger · filed 2021-03-22

Thus, all four claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations period, meaning Plaintiffs must allege the claims against John Doe defendants within two years of the accrual of each claim.

The continuing violation doctrine does not toll the limitations period for a § 1983 claim when a reasonable person would have recognized the alleged violation before that period began.

Sherry v. City Of Chicago · filed 2021-03-23

Because he has not met his burden to show some evidence that a reasonable person in his circumstances would not have realized that the City’s course of conduct amounted to a constitutional violation prior to August 13, 2016, Sherry cannot rely on the continuing violation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations, and his claims are time-barred.

Section 1983 claims use state statutes of limitations.

Durant v. Gretna City · filed 2021-03-23

Federal courts must apply state statutes of limitations to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 actions arising in Virginia must be filed within two years of accrual.

Wilson v. Doe · filed 2021-03-24

A plaintiff bringing a civil rights action under § 1983 in Virginia must do so within two years from the time when his action accrues.

The limitations period for a § 1983 claim is tolled while a prisoner exhausts administrative remedies.

Atwater v. Rollins · filed 2021-03-24

The statute of limitations is tolled pending exhaustion of administrative remedies, see Givens v. Luedtke, 587 F. App'x 979, 981 (7th Cir. 2014); thus, it appears as though Atwater timely filed this case on October 28, 2019, one day before the statute of limitations lapsed. Accordingly, Atwater may proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim that Julie Nickels and Jeffrey Rollins used excessive force on August 9, 2013.

Section 1983 claims arising in Michigan use the state's three-year tort limitations period and tolling rules.

WILLIAMS v. Detroit, City of · filed 2021-03-24

It is well established that the Michigan three-year tort limitations period and tolling rules apply to the § 1983 claims at issue here.

A Section 1983 hostile work environment claim may include earlier conduct when it is part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the limitations period.

Boxill v. O'Grady · filed 2021-03-24

Boxill asserts hostile work environment claims, which, as the Supreme Court has explained, “will not be time barred so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 (2002); see also Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 267 (6th Cir. 2003) (extending the Supreme Court’s Morgan ruling to § 1983 claims). ... Thus, Boxill’s sex-based hostile work environment claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims are subject to the applicable state personal injury limitations period, while federal law governs when the claim accrues.

Jenkins v. Little · filed 2021-03-25

The district court properly dismissed Jenkins’s action because his claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims filed in New York have a three-year limitations period borrowed from state law.

Mees v. City of New York · filed 2021-03-25

The limitations period for a claim under § 1983 depends on state law, and in New York is three years.

Section 1983 claims brought in Ohio are subject to Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations.

Watkins v. Columbus City Schools · filed 2021-03-25

Watkins does not make clear what statutory vehicle he is using to bring this cause of action, but it could be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Either way, Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations contained in Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10 applies.

Section 1983 claims are subject to a statute of limitations that bars claims filed years after the events at issue.

Bitsui v. Rassas · filed 2021-03-26

But there is no doubt that § 1983 and § 1985 claims have a statute of limitations, and such claims against Judge Sukenic based on events from 2015 and 2016 are time barred.

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

BELL v. United States · filed 2021-03-26

Therefore, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are governed by a two-year statute of limitations.

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

Allen v. Mitchell · filed 2021-03-29

We conclude that Allen’s claims are barred by North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007) (noting length of statute of limitations in § 1983 action determined by state law); Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1996) (applying North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 action).

Section 1983 claims arising in Kentucky are subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

Smith v. Tyler · filed 2021-03-29

In sum, the one-year statute of limitations under KRS § 413.140(1)(a) applies to Smith’s § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims filed in Kentucky have a one-year limitations period.

Hiles v. Erwin · filed 2021-03-29

It is well settled that, in Kentucky, the limitations period for § 1983 actions is the one-year statute of limitations found in § 413.140(1)(a).

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

Stratta v. Roe · filed 2021-03-30

Therefore, Texas’ two-year statute of limitations applies to Section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims arising in Colorado have a two-year limitations period, which bars a claim based on a permit condition when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury more than two years before filing.

2701 Mountain Glen Ct v. City of Woodland Park, CO · filed 2021-03-30

And plaintiff knew or should have known of the City’s demand for a sidewalk and the need or lack thereof for a sidewalk in connection with its property in 2014. We therefore agree that the two-year statute of limitations bars this aspect of plaintiff’s claim.

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

Raper v. Warren, City of · filed 2021-03-30

Causes of action brough under § 1983 are governed by the analogous state statute of limitations, which in Arkansas is three years.

Section 1983 damages claims filed in Georgia have a two-year limitations period.

Morris v. Moats · filed 2021-03-30

So Plaintiff Jarrard had two years from January 2017 to bring his claim. ... Because he waited three years, his claim for damages is untimely.

Section 1983 claims brought in Indiana use the state's two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims.

ABBOTT v. CIRCUIT COURT 3 OF DELAWARE COUNTY · filed 2021-03-30

Here, that is the two-year statute of limitations found in Indiana Code § 34–11–2–4. Abbott's § 1983 claims against Quirk are therefore also time-barred.

Section 1983 claims use the state limitations and tolling rules for personal injury claims; in Indiana, the limitations period is two years.

BLEDSOE v. LAWRENCE · filed 2021-03-30

Suits under § 1983 use the statute of limitations and tolling rules that states employ for personal-injury claims. In Indiana, the applicable statute of limitations period is two years.

Section 1983 claims brought in Nebraska are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.

Mixon v. Esch · filed 2021-03-30

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are limited by a four-year statute of limitations.

Section 1983 has no limitations period of its own and uses the applicable state limitations period for personal injury claims.

Garcia v. Davis · filed 2021-03-30

Section 1983 does not have its own statute of limitations, but ... rather adopts applicable state-law statute of limitations applicable to personal-injury torts.

Section 1983 malicious abuse of process claims in New York are subject to a three-year limitations period that begins when the criminal process is set in motion.

Li v. Village of Saddle Rock · filed 2021-03-30

Section 1983 malicious abuse of process claims are time-barred if they stem from arrests or tickets for criminal violations predating a civil complaint by more than three years.

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

Meniooh v. Humboldt County · filed 2021-03-31

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

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

Smith v. Rawson · filed 2021-03-31

Federal civil rights actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and arising from conduct in Idaho are governed by a two-year statute of limitations.

The limitations period for a Section 1983 claim is not tolled while related EEOC charges are pending.

Hudson v. Foxx · filed 2021-03-31

Consequently, the statute of limitations is not tolled as to the § 1983 claims, and any claim based entirely on conduct occurring prior to October 31, 2017, is time-barred.

Section 1983 claims filed in Michigan have a three-year statute of limitations.

Jenkins 172475 v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2021-03-31

For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years. ... Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against these Defendants are untimely.

Section 1983 claims are governed by the state’s residual or general personal injury statute of limitations when the state has more than one personal injury limitations period.

Brown v. Lee · filed 2021-03-31

In states that have more than one statute of limitation for personal injury actions, § 1983 actions are governed by the residual or general personal injury statute of limitations.

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

Augusta v. People of the State of Illinois · filed 2021-04-01

Plaintiff’s claims arising under section 1983 are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Here, it is clear that these claims concerning the 2016 arrest, filed November 12, 2020, are outside the applicable statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims arising in Tennessee are subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

Franklin v. Giles County · filed 2021-04-02

Accordingly, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims is one year.

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

Staton v. Boggs · filed 2021-04-05

Staton’s allegations that Boggs used excessive force against him on June 3, 2017, are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In an action brought under Section 1983, a federal court must apply the forum state’s general statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

A Section 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury; California’s limitations period is two years.

Sanchez v. Webber · filed 2021-04-08

The FAC alleges a section 1983 claim arising from the same 2008 incident related to Plaintiff’s placement in the witness relocation program. Thus, as previously stated, any section 1983 claim arising from this incident accrued in 2008 because that is when the defendants failed to offer assistance other than relocation, and Plaintiff was aware of his injury at that time.

Section 1983 claims brought in Michigan are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Lindsay v. Fresard · filed 2021-04-08

“Thus, § 1983 claims brought in Michigan are subject to its three-year statute of limitations. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2).” Id. Here, Plaintiff knew the basis of his alleged injuries in October of 2016. Yet Plaintiff did not file this action until more than four years later. All of his § 1983 claims are time-barred.

Section 1983 claims brought by a class member can receive class-action tolling until the member opts out.

Adams v. Annucci · filed 2021-04-08

Based upon the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff was a class member in Betances and thus, the statute of limitation on plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims tolled when the Betances action was filed in May 2011 and resumed on December 20, 2020, when he "opted out" of the class.

Section 1983 claims arising in Tennessee are subject to a one-year limitations period.

Watison v. Sarratt · filed 2021-04-09

First, this action arising from the events of March 2, 2019, is barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to Section 1983 actions that originate in Tennessee, as Plaintiff did not file suit until late-August 2020.

Section 1983 claims filed in Indiana use the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.

Haynes v. Allen County Police Department Medical Unit · filed 2021-04-12

Suits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 borrow the statute of limitations for state personal injury claims, which in Indiana is two years.

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

Khalid v. Citrix Systems Inc · filed 2021-04-14

Because there is a three-year statute of limitations for §§ 1983 and 1985 claims, his claims are untimely.

Section 1983 claims in Missouri are subject to the state’s five-year limitations period for personal injury claims.

Hall v. United States · filed 2021-04-14

Additionally, § 1983 claims are analogous to personal injury claims and are subject to Missouri’s five-year statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims arising in Virginia are subject to Virginia’s two-year personal injury limitations period.

Goins v. Taylor · filed 2021-04-15

This two-year limitation statute applies to a prisoner’s § 1983 claims for events that occurred in Virginia.

Section 1983 claims borrow the state personal injury limitations period, while federal law determines when the claim accrues.

Hearn v. McCraw · filed 2021-04-15

Because § 1983 does not provide a statute of limitations, courts borrow from state law.

Section 1983 claims filed in Kentucky are subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

Mathis v. Mayo · filed 2021-04-15

Thus, in Kentucky, § 1983 actions are limited by the one-year statute of limitations found in Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a).

Section 1983 claims filed in Michigan have a three-year statute of limitations.

Cheeks 236305 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2021-04-16

For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years.

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

Whetsel v. Montas · filed 2021-04-19

As is readily apparent, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Swiney are outside the three-year statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims arising in Michigan use the state's three-year limitations period for personal injury actions.

Davis v. Spehar · filed 2021-04-20

For § 1983 actions arising in Michigan, federal courts borrow the state's three-year limitations period for personal injury actions.

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

Shareef v. Moore · filed 2021-04-22

Section 1983 claims are subject to Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations.

A § 1983 claim for denial of post-conviction DNA testing accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know that access to the evidence was denied.

Reed v. Goertz · filed 2021-04-22

Here, Reed first became aware that his right to access that evidence was allegedly being violated when the trial court denied his Chapter 64 motion in November 2014. Reed had the necessary information to know that his rights were allegedly being violated as soon as the trial court denied his motion for post-conviction relief.

Section 1983 claims in Illinois have a two-year limitations period, tolled while a prisoner exhausts administrative remedies; the defendant bears the burden of showing the claim is untimely.

Kendricks v. Williams · filed 2021-04-22

In Illinois, the limitations period applicable to § 1983 claims is two years. ... Westley bears the burden of demonstrating that Kendricks’ claim is time-barred, and she has failed to do so without fully addressing Kendricks, initial grievance.

Section 1983 claims accrue when an alleged wrongful act or omission causes injury, starting the limitations period.

Bordeaux v. Bicknase · filed 2021-04-22

In other words, Bordeaux’s claims accrued, and the statute of limitation began to run when Hunzeker’s alleged wrongful act or omission resulted in damages.

Section 1983 claims use the personal injury limitations period of the state where they arise; in New Jersey, that period is two years.

Campbell v. County of Morris · filed 2021-04-23

“[A] § 1983 claim is governed by the statute of limitations that applies to personal injury tort claims in the state in which such a claim arises.” See Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 639 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Here the claims are based on conduct in New Jersey, where the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim is two years.

Section 1983 claims filed in Connecticut are subject to a three-year limitations period.

Goins v. Papoosha · filed 2021-04-23

The statute of limitations for filing a claim under Section 1983 in Connecticut is three years. ... Any Section 1983 claims therefore based on his initial designation as a Security Risk Group member and any injuries resulting from that initial designation, to the extent they occurred before March 24, 2018, are time-barred.

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

Britton v. Kennedy · filed 2021-04-23

"In Illinois, the statute of limitations period for § 1983 claims is two years.”

Section 1983 malicious prosecution and fabrication-of-evidence claims accrue when the criminal proceedings terminate in the plaintiff’s favor.

Lloyd v. Ocean Township Counsel · filed 2021-04-26

Lloyd also alleged malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence. The time to raise these claims “does not begin to run until the criminal proceedings against the defendant (i.e., the § 1983 plaintiff) have terminated in [her] favor.” McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149, 2154–55 (2019). Lloyd was acquitted on September 2, 2016. Because her claims were not filed by September 2, 2018, they were also not timely.

Section 1983 claims filed in California use a two-year limitations period, and a plaintiff must allege facts showing timely filing or entitlement to equitable tolling.

Franklin v. Martinez · filed 2021-04-27

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on Franklin’s claim against defendant Boroquez because Franklin failed to allege facts sufficient ... to show he filed his action within the two-year statute of limitations or was entitled to equitable tolling.

Section 1983 has no limitations period of its own, so courts apply the forum state’s general personal injury limitations period.

MCDONALD v. JOHNSON · filed 2021-04-27

On this point, § 1983 has no statute of limitations of its own, and instead, the forum state’s general personal injury statute of limitations applies in these cases.

Section 1983 claims filed in New York are subject to a three-year limitations period.

Banchs v. Noworyta · filed 2021-04-27

In New York State, the statute of limitations for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the three-year period in New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“NY CPLR”) § 214(2). ... Therefore, this action is time barred and Banchs’s case is dismissed.

A § 1983 claim for detention past a release date accrues when the prisoner learns he should have been released; in Pennsylvania, the limitations period is two years.

Zguro v. Johnson · filed 2021-04-27

Plaintiff knew of his injury when he was advised by the parole board on August 3, 2017, that he should have been released on February 28, 2017, thus his cause of action accrued on or about August 3, 2017, and the statute of limitations for filing a § 1983 action related to his continued imprisonment expired on or about August 3, 2019.

Section 1983 claims brought in Pennsylvania have a two-year statute of limitations.

Branch v. Department of Corrections · filed 2021-04-27

The statute of limitations for an action brought pursuant to § 1983 in Pennsylvania is two years.

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

EMBERTON v. WINKLE · filed 2021-04-29

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

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

Mallory v. Bolton · filed 2021-04-29

Courts look to a state’s personal injury statute to determine the appropriate limitations period for causes of action under § 1983 because the statute does not contain its own limitations period.

Section 1983 borrows the state personal injury statute of limitations, which is three years in New York.

Bell v. Saunders · filed 2021-04-29

“Section 1983 does not provide a specific statute of limitations. Thus, courts apply the statute of limitations for personal injury actions under state law.” Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 517 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-51 (1989)). In New York, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is three years.

Section 1983 personal injury claims in Texas have a two-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff knows or has sufficient information to know of the injury.

Terry v. Detention Workers · filed 2021-04-29

Actions in Texas under section 1983 for personal injury claims have a two-year statute of limitations, which begins to run “the moment the plaintiff becomes aware that [s]he has suffered an injury or has sufficient information to know that [s]he has been injured.”"

Section 1983 claims arising in Michigan have a three-year limitations period borrowed from Michigan’s personal-injury law.

Little v. Presque Isle County · filed 2021-04-30

Plaintiff’s two federal claims, Counts I and II, are pled pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute of limitations for a § 1983 action mirrors the limitation period for personal-injury torts in the State in which the cause of action arose.

The three-year limitations period for a Section 1983 claim is tolled for putative class members while class certification remains pending, allowing timely individual claims after certification is denied.

Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc. · filed 2021-05-04

One aspect of the defendants’ untimeliness argument invokes the statute of limitations as it applies to the remaining due process claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... That rule has little effect on the proposed intervenors here, however, because class certification was not denied until December 22, 2020, and they still have plenty of time to file an independent action against all of the defendants before the three-year period of limitations expires. It certainly would not bar intervention to pursue their individual claims against the defendants.

Section 1983 claims use the limitations period for personal injury actions in the state where the court sits.

Cintron v. Doe 1 · filed 2021-05-04

The statute of limitations for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the same as that for personal injury actions under the law of the state in which the court sits.

Section 1983 claims against Connecticut officials are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Ruiz v. Taranovich · filed 2021-05-05

Accordingly, the claims raised against the medical providers fall far outside the three-year statute of limitations applicable to section 1983 actions against Connecticut officials.

Section 1983 actions in New York are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Gulledge v. Jefferson County · filed 2021-05-06

As relevant here, the statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 are governed by a three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214 [2]; Fields v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y. , 94 AD2d 202, 205 [1983], affd 63 NY2d 817 [1984]).

Section 1983 claims use the personal-injury limitations period of the state where the suit is filed; in Georgia, that period is two years.

DAVIS v. CITY OF NEW YORK · filed 2021-05-06

Although Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New York, he filed his lawsuit in a Georgia district court. Therefore, the Court looks to Georgia law to determine the limitations period, which is two years. ... Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims without prejudice.

Section 1983 claims filed in Michigan use the state’s three-year personal-injury limitations period.

Forrester v. Clarenceville School District · filed 2021-05-06

The applicable statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims is three years.

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

Coleman v. City of Galesburg · filed 2021-05-07

As the statute of limitations for Coleman’s Equal Protection claim is two years and Coleman sought leave to amend in January 2021, Judge Hawley undoubtedly ruled correctly.

A § 1983 claim may be dismissed as frivolous when the complaint shows that the limitations period expired and provides no valid basis for tolling.

Meeks v. Suliene · filed 2021-05-07

In his complaint, Meeks acknowledges that, at the relevant time, Wisconsin had a six-year statute of limitations, yet he complains about conduct that started in 2008 and ended a decade ago in 2011. Meeks fails to offer a valid basis for tolling the statute of limitations. He asserts that Dr. Suliene’s conduct should be viewed as a “continuing violation,” but he also asserts that his leg pain was resolved in 2011 when the bullet fragments were removed. His suggestion that her alleged deliberate indifference to his leg pain continues even though he has not had leg pain since 2011 is nonsensical. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action, which was brought long after the statute of limitations expired, must be dismissed because it is frivolous.

A Section 1983 claim for denial of medical care accrues when care is denied, even if the plaintiff learns the full extent of the injury later.

Robinson v. Butler County, Kentucky · filed 2021-05-11

Robinson’s cause of action accrued when he was allegedly denied the medical care, not when he was actually diagnosed with MG or suffered from a “thyroid storm.”

A Florida § 1983 claim challenging publication on the sex offender registry is subject to a four-year limitations period; later employment losses from that publication do not extend it.

Huff v. Swearingen · filed 2021-05-14

While Huff argues the loss of employment and employment opportunities in 2019 make this a continuing violation of his constitutional rights, the losses of employment and employment opportunities are continuing harms, not continuing violations. ... Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing Huff’s complaint as it was filed after the four-year ... statute of limitations had ended.

Section 1983 claims in New Jersey have a two-year limitations period borrowed from state personal injury law.

CARATINI v. POWELL · filed 2021-05-14

A claim under § 1983 is governed by the applicable state’s statute of limitations period for personal injury torts; in New Jersey it is two years.

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

Kelly v. The City of Mount Vernon · filed 2021-05-14

The statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 is three years.

Section 1983 claims use the state personal injury statute of limitations, which is three years in South Carolina.

Dizzley v. Garrett · filed 2021-05-17

Because section 1983 does not contain a statute of limitations, “to determine the timely filing of a § 1983 claim, courts borrow the statute of limitations from the most analogous state-law cause of action. For § 1983 suits, that cause of action is a personal-injury suit.” Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Att’y Off., 767 F.3d 379, 388 (4th Cir. 2014).

A § 1983 claim can become time-barred before a conviction is vacated if the claim never necessarily implied that conviction’s invalidity under Heck.

SWEENEY v. KRAMER · filed 2021-05-20

For these reasons, Mr. Sweeney's federal conviction never barred his claims under Heck.! The claims are therefore barred by the statute of limitations, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

In New York, a § 1983 abuse of process claim is subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Mott v. County of Monroe · filed 2021-05-21

Plaintiff’s claims for abuse of process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 do not suffer the same fate as the state law claims because a federal abuse of process claim is governed by a three-year statue of limitations.

Section 1983 claims filed in Illinois have a two-year limitations period, but dismissal at the pleading stage is inappropriate when the complaint lacks facts needed to assess a continuing violation.

Williams v. Chicago Public Schools · filed 2021-05-21

The limitations period for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims is borrowed from the state statute of limitations for personal injury claims. Mitchell v. Donchin, 286 F.3d 447, 450 n.1 (7th Cir. 2002). The statute of limitations "applicable to all [section] 1983 claims brought in Illinois is two years, as provided in 735 ILCS 5/13–202." Woods v. Ill. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 710 F.3d 762, 768 (7th Cir. 2013). ... The Court concludes that it is inappropriate to adjudicate the defendants' limitations defense at this juncture.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state’s personal injury limitations period; a continuing violation can allow related earlier acts of harassment to be considered.

Miller v. Valenza · filed 2021-05-24

Section 1983 claims are governed by the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations. ... The continuing violation doctrine applies, and plaintiff’s claim, at least at the pleading stage, includes incidents prior to the April 20, 2018, cutoff date.

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

Craft v. Galutza · filed 2021-05-24

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint includes claims that are barred by Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations. ... Considering the complaint as “filed” on December 17, 2020, any claims arising prior to December 17, 2018, are barred.

Section 1983 claims use the limitations periods and tolling rules that states apply to personal-injury claims.

SHORTER v. HENDRIX · filed 2021-05-25

Suits under § 1983 use the statute of limitations and tolling rules that states employ for personal-injury claims.

The continuing violation doctrine does not save time-barred § 1983 legal-mail claims arising from incidents in 2005 and 2006.

Jose Zaldivar, Sr. v. Ryan · filed 2021-05-26

Contrary to Zaldivar’s contention, the continuing violation doctrine does not save his interference with legal mail claims from being time-barred.

Section 1983 claims use the forum state’s personal injury limitations period and tolling rules; federal law determines when the claim accrues.

Brown v. Collins · filed 2021-05-26

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s excessive force claim against defendant Collins because Brown failed to bring this claim within the applicable statute of limitations or establish any basis for tolling. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 1983 claims are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including state law regarding tolling); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008) (under federal law, which determines accrual, “a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Vaughn v. Teledyne, Inc., 628 F.2d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff has burden to prove facts that show tolling).

Installment payments toward a predetermined obligation do not toll the limitations period for a § 1983 claim under the continuing wrong doctrine.

EPCON HOMESTEAD, LLC v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL · filed 2021-05-26

The payments were exactly what the continuing wrong doctrine is not: the “continual ill effects from an original violation” laid out in the SUP. ... Accordingly, the continuing wrong doctrine does not apply and the statute of limitations on Epcon’s § 1983 claims has expired.

In Puerto Rico, section 1983 claims are subject to a one-year limitations period.

Cruzado-Laureano v. Puerto Rico Comptroller's Office · filed 2021-05-26

Section 1983 is subject to a one-year limitations period pursuant to Puerto Rico law.

Section 1983 claims arising in Tennessee have a one-year limitations period borrowed from state personal injury law.

Miller v. Cocke County, Tennessee (TV2) · filed 2021-05-27

Tennessee’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims and for claims brought under federal civil rights statutes such as § 1983 is one year.

Section 1983 has no limitations period of its own, so courts apply the most analogous limitations period from the state where the events occurred.

Able v. Harden · filed 2021-05-28

Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide its own limitations period, federal courts apply the most analogous statute of limitations from the state where the events occurred.

Section 1983 claims in Kentucky are subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

Cooper v. Palmer · filed 2021-05-28

Cooper suggests that he is pursuing his claims against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. As this Court has explained, there is a one-year statute of limitations on such claims in Kentucky.

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

Richards v. Warren Police Department · filed 2021-05-28

The statute of limitations for section 1983 claims brought by Michigan plaintiffs is three years.

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

Boggs v. City of Cleveland · filed 2021-05-28

Therefore, the Court finds the applicable statute of limitations to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims is two years.

Section 1983 claims use the personal injury statute of limitations of the state where the claim arises.

ROSADO v. JANE DOE (LAW LIBRIAN) · filed 2021-05-28

A claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is subject to the same statute of limitations that applies to personal injury tort claims in the state in which such a claim arises.

Section 1983 claims in Florida are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.

Edwards v. City of Fort Myers · filed 2021-06-01

Florida’s four-year statute of limitations for personal injuries applies to claims for deprivations of rights under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims in Kentucky are subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

Dale v. City of Paris · filed 2021-06-01

The Sixth Circuit has held “that section 1983 actions in Kentucky are limited by the one-year statute of limitations found in [K.R.S. §] 413.140(1)(a).” ... Thus, to the extent Dale’s claims concern his alleged entitlement ... to the 2018 promotion, these allegations are time-barred.

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

SPANN v. CUMBERLAND/SALEM MUNCIPAL COURT · filed 2021-06-01

Claims under § 1983 are governed by the applicable state's general or residual statute of limitations for such actions. ... As Plaintiff’s allegations stem from an incident that occurred in 2016, the two-year limitations period has long passed.

Section 1983 claims arising in Ohio have a two-year statute of limitations.

Harris v. Turner · filed 2021-06-01

The statute of limitations for civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising in Ohio is two years.

Section 1983 claims in Minnesota use the six-year limitations period for personal injury torts.

Case v. Walz · filed 2021-06-02

For § 1983 claims, the statute of limitations is established by the state statute of limitations for personal injury torts. ... In Minnesota, the applicable statute of limitations is six years.

Section 1983 claims arising in Michigan have a three-year statute of limitations, and fraudulent concealment does not extend that period.

Forrester v. Clarenceville School District · filed 2021-06-03

In Michigan, the claims under § 1983 have a three-year statute of limitations, and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not apply.

A § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury underlying the claim.

Campbell v. Garlington · filed 2021-06-03

Here, plaintiff Patrick Campbell’s § 1983 claim accrued in October 2013 when C.G.C. and T.W.C. were allegedly removed from plaintiff Patrick Campbell’s care and custody because that is when plaintiff Patrick Campbell knew or had reason to know of the alleged injury.

Section 1983 claims arising in New Jersey have a two-year limitations period, subject to equitable tolling.

ROUNDTREE v. SANTIAGO · filed 2021-06-03

The two-year statute of limitations expired in 2018 on the excessive force, First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims arising out of the incidents in 2016 that are alleged in the amended complaint. ... The Court will, therefore, dismiss the claims without prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations, subject to amendment if Plaintiff has a basis for equitable tolling.

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

JOHNSON v. CAMPBELL · filed 2021-06-03

Federal civil rights claims under § 1983 are subject to the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Section 1983 claims in Mississippi use a three-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff knows or has sufficient information to know of the injury.

Pierce v. State Mississippi · filed 2021-06-04

In Mississippi, that statute is MISS. CODE ANN. § 15-1-49, which allows a litigant only three years to file such an action, and the statute begins to run “at the moment the plaintiff becomes aware he has suffered an injury or has sufficient information to know he has been injured.”

A plausibly alleged continuing violation may extend the limitations period for a § 1983 claim at the motion to dismiss stage.

Gill v. Inch · filed 2021-06-07

Given these allegations, and only for the purpose of ruling on the Motion, the Court finds Gill has plausibly alleged a “continuing violation” that may extend the limitations period.

Section 1983 claims borrow the applicable state limitations period, which is three years in North Carolina.

Felix v. Doughtie · filed 2021-06-08

For example, the statutory limitations period for a § 1983 claim is borrowed from state law, meaning a three-year limitations period in this instance.

Section 1983 claims in South Dakota must be brought within three years after the alleged constitutional deprivation.

Bell v. Gross · filed 2021-06-08

While § 1983 does not contain a specific statute of limitations, the Supreme Court has instructed courts to apply the most analogous statute of limitations to claims made under § 1983. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-68 (1985). South Dakota adopted a specific statute that provides that civil rights actions must be brought within three years after the alleged constitutional deprivation occurred or be barred. Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 266 (8th Cir. 1996) (referencing SDCL 15-2-15.2). Bell filed this lawsuit on May 18, 2021. Doc. 1. Because the violations alleged occurred in 2012 and 2015, Bell’s compliant is barred by the statute of limitations and must be dismissed.

Section 1983 claims arising in Kentucky have a one-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff knows of the injury and who caused it.

Tutt v. Hubbard · filed 2021-02-11

In this case, neither party disputes that Kentucky’s one-year statute of limitations, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a), applies to civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such as the claims asserted by Tutt.

Section 1983 employment discrimination claims in Louisiana are subject to a one-year limitations period.

Jones v. Gee · filed 2021-03-09

... claims of employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 were time-barred by the one-year limitations period of La. Civ. Code, art. 3536.

Section 1983 claims use state personal injury limitations and tolling rules; in Indiana, the limitations period is two years.

SMITH v. REAGLE · filed 2021-06-09

Suits under § 1983 use the statute of limitations and tolling rules that states employ for personal-injury claims. In Indiana, the applicable statute of limitations period is two years.

Section 1983 claims in Kentucky are tolled while the plaintiff’s mental disability continues, even if her guardian knew of the injury.

Black v. Gibson · filed 2021-06-09

The plain language of the tolling statute provides that Black’s claims are tolled for her Section 1983 claim until her mental disability either subsides or she dies.

Section 1983 actions use the personal injury limitations period of the state or territory where the claim arose.

Maxwell v. Doe · filed 2021-06-15

The statute of limitations in a section 1983 action is governed by the limitations period applicable to personal injury actions of the state or territory where the cause of action arose.

In Arizona, a § 1983 claim arising from a rezoning is time barred if filed more than two years after the owner learns of the rezoning.

Bennett v. Kingman, City of · filed 2021-06-15

The limitations period ... expired two years later, in 2014. Because the Bennetts waited until January 2019 to initiate ... this case, their § 1983 claims are time barred to the extent they stem from Ordinance 1471.

Section 1983 has no express limitations period, so federal courts apply the forum state's limitations period.

Marque Bowers v. Dart · filed 2021-06-16

Because § 1983 does not contain an express limitations period, federal courts adopt the law of the forum state.

Section 1983 actions arising in Kansas borrow Kansas tolling principles.

McCarty v. Pawnee, County of · filed 2021-06-21

In a § 1983 action arising in Kansas, such as this case, the court borrows Kansas tolling principles.

Section 1983 claims arising in Missouri are subject to the state’s five-year personal injury limitations period.

Stewart v. White · filed 2021-06-22

Thus, for cases arising in Missouri, the five-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions found in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4) applies to § 1983 actions.

Section 1983 claims in Missouri are subject to a five-year limitations period for personal injury actions.

Pittman v. The Board of Curators of the University of Missouri · filed 2021-06-22

Given that Plaintiff’s involvement with Silverman concluded after this date, Plaintiff’s five-year statute of limitations would have ran on his § 1983 claims in May of 2020. The action at hand was filed on October 26, 2020.

Section 1983 has no limitations period of its own; courts borrow the period for the most analogous state-law cause of action.

Rich v. Hersl · filed 2021-06-24

Section 1983 does not contain a statute of limitations. To determine whether a § 1983 claim was timely filed, courts look to the statute of limitations from the most analogous state-law cause of action.

A § 1983 action filed after the applicable personal injury limitations period is time-barred.

Medeiros v. City of Palo Alto · filed 2021-06-25

Thomas Medeiros appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a malicious prosecution claim. ... The district court properly dismissed Medeiros’s action as time-barred because Medeiros failed to file his action within the applicable statute of limitations.

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

Karam v. Evanko · filed 2021-06-28

Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to § 1983 actions, Krug v. Imbordino, 896 F.2d 395, 396-97 (9th Cir. 1990), as well as Bivens actions, Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir. 1991).

A Section 1983 claim arising from prison discipline that cost good-time credits accrues when the discipline is set aside; in Indiana, the claim must be filed within two years.

Pilgrim v. Griffin · filed 2021-06-28

At that point, he was able to sue for claims stemming from the disciplinary hearing, and the clock began running on the statute of limitations. See Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026, 1028 (7th Cir. 2016) (noting that for prison disciplinary proceedings resulting in the loss of good-time credits, “a § 1983 claim does not accrue until the conviction or discipline had been set aside”). Therefore, any federal cause of action stemming from the disciplinary action had to be filed within two years of November 5, 2018. See Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7th Cir. 2012) (statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in Indiana is two years).