Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Mismash v. Murray City

Mismash v. Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366 (10th Cir. 1984)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1984-03-30
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • applying 4-year Utah statute for actions not limited by a specific statute of limitations
  • selecting Utah's 4-year residuary statute, absent any statute for personal injury

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Mismash v. Murray City. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
33 opinions
MISMASH v. MURRAY CITY,730 F.2d 1366(10th Cir. 1984)
CRAIG K. MISMASH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MURRAY CITY, A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, SCOTT ROBINSON, GARY REID, AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 20,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 82-1963.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
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.
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.
[1] 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 underPage 136742 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.

[2] 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."

[3] 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.See42 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). InGarcia 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.

[4] 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.

[5] REVERSED AND REMANDED.