Summary
The Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that Ohio's two-year general personal-injury limitations period under Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10 applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than the one-year intentional-tort period in § 2305.11. Relying on Owens v. Okure, the court overruled its prior decision in Mulligan v. Hazard, reversed the judgment on the pleadings, and remanded for determination of the accrual date.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Which Ohio statute of limitations must be borrowed for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising in Ohio when Ohio has separate limitations periods for intentional torts and general bodily-injury claims?
- Whether the district court could dismiss the action as untimely without determining the accrual date under the applicable two-year limitations period?
Holdings
- The applicable limitations period for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights actions arising in Ohio is the two-year general bodily-injury limitations period in Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10, rather than the one-year intentional-tort period in § 2305.11.
- The case could not be resolved on timeliness without determining the accrual date under the applicable two-year period; that issue had to be decided by the district court on remand.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we hold that the appropriate statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights actions arising in Ohio is contained in Ohio Rev.Code Ann. Sec. 2305.10, which requires that actions for bodily injury be filed within two years after their accrual.” (991-992)
“In light of the Supreme Court's holding in Owens, our holding in Mulligan v. Hazard, supra, is hereby overruled.” (992)
Factual background
The plaintiffs operated a gravel business in Warren County, Ohio. They alleged that county officials selectively enforced low load limits and failed to maintain roads needed for the business in an effort to force it to close. They further alleged that the conduct caused bankruptcy proceedings and culminated in the sale of the business at a sheriff's sale on October 17, 1983. The action was filed on July 1, 1985, alleging violations of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Procedural history
The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings after the case was referred to a magistrate. The magistrate recommended granting the motion under Mulligan v. Hazard, and the district court adopted that recommendation on November 7, 1986. The Sixth Circuit granted en banc rehearing to resolve conflicting circuit precedent, reversed the judgment, and remanded for determination of the accrual date and further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The district court must determine the accrual date of the plaintiffs' cause of action under Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10 and conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion.