Diontay Kimberly v. Nicholas Mukite, Andrew David, Timothy Giorzkowski, David Magana, and Lee Caldwell

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Diontay Kimberly’s claims against several police officers arising from an alleged unlawful seizure and use of excessive force. The court held that the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims accrued on September 15, 2021 and were barred by Illinois’s two-year statute of limitations, while the related Illinois constitutional claim was barred by the applicable one-year limitations period. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, denied the pending motion for default judgment as moot, and terminated the case.

Holdings

1. A § 1983 claim alleging an unconstitutional search or seizure, including excessive force during an arrest, accrues when the alleged seizure or force occurs. In Illinois, the applicable limitations period is two years, so Kimberly's claims accrued on September 15, 2021 and were untimely when he filed in October 2024.
2. Subsequent criminal proceedings, acquittal, or incarceration do not ordinarily toll or postpone accrual of unlawful-search, unlawful-seizure, or excessive-force claims. Kimberly's alleged May 10, 2023 acquittal therefore did not make his October 2024 § 1983 filing timely.
3. The related Illinois Constitution claims were subject to Illinois's one-year limitations period for claims against local governments and governmental employees and were untimely even if the limitations period were measured from Kimberly's alleged acquittal.
4. Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because the limitations defects could not be cured by repleading, and amendment would therefore be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint established on its face that Kimberly's § 1983 claims for unlawful seizure and excessive force were barred by the two-year Illinois personal-injury limitations period.
2. Whether Kimberly's alleged acquittal on May 10, 2023, delayed accrual or tolled the limitations period for his unlawful-seizure and excessive-force claims.
3. Whether the related Illinois Constitution claims were barred by Illinois's one-year limitations period for claims against local governments and governmental employees.
4. Whether dismissal should be with prejudice because the pleading defects could not be cured by amendment.
5. Whether plaintiff's motion for default judgment should be denied as moot after dismissal of the action.

Disposition

dismissed