From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mismash v. Murray City

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Mar 30, 1984
730 F.2d 1366 (10th Cir. 1984)

Summary

concluding that Utah's residual four-year statute of limitations applied to § 1983 claims

Summary of this case from Am. W. Bank Members v. Utah

Opinion

No. 82-1963.

March 30, 1984.

Mary C. Corporon of Corporon Williams, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff-appellant.

Allan L. Larson of Snow, Christensen Martineau, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

Before SETH, Chief Judge, and HOLLOWAY, McWILLIAMS, BARRETT, DOYLE, McKAY, LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.


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

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

Because Congress has not enacted a statute of limitations expressly applicable to section 1983 claims, the court must adopt the most analogous limitations period provided by state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1976); Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483-84, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1794-95, 94 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980). In Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F.2d 640 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc), decided this day, we considered the method by which an appropriate state statute is to be selected for section 1983 actions. We concluded as a matter of federal law that all section 1983 claims should be characterized as actions for injury to the rights of another. See id. at 650-51.

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

REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

Mismash v. Murray City

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Mar 30, 1984
730 F.2d 1366 (10th Cir. 1984)

concluding that Utah's residual four-year statute of limitations applied to § 1983 claims

Summary of this case from Am. W. Bank Members v. Utah

concluding that Utah's residual four-year statute of limitations applied to section 1983 claims

Summary of this case from Adamson v. City of Provo, Utah

selecting Utah's 4-year residuary statute, absent any statute for personal injury

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Garcia

applying Utah statute of limitations for "[a]n action for relief not otherwise provided for by law" rather than the statute for claims of "libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment or seduction"

Summary of this case from Meade v. Grubbs

In Mismash v. Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366, 1367 (10th Cir. 1984), decided the same day as Wilson, the Tenth Circuit noted that Utah had no statute of limitations which was "expressly applicable to actions for injury to the rights of another."

Summary of this case from Arnold v. Duchesne County

designating four-year statute in Utah

Summary of this case from Chris N. v. Burnsville, Minn.

In Mismash v. Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 2111, 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (U.S. 1985), involving a claim of excessive force during an arrest, the court found no Utah statute of limitations "expressly applicable to actions for injury to the rights of others," and, therefore, applied Utah's four-year residuary period, Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(2) (1953), which governs personal torts except for "libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment or seduction," the latter being governed by the one-year period in Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-29(4) (1953).

Summary of this case from Small v. Inhabitants of City of Belfast
Case details for

Mismash v. Murray City

Case Details

Full title:CRAIG K. MISMASH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MURRAY CITY, A MUNICIPAL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Mar 30, 1984

Citations

730 F.2d 1366 (10th Cir. 1984)

Citing Cases

Adamson v. City of Provo, Utah

These recent Supreme Court decisions appear to have answered lingering questions regarding which state…

Arnold v. Duchesne County

At the time of the Tenth Circuit's original ruling in Wilson v. Garcia, the Utah State Legislature had…