Hileman v. Knable, 17038.

Decision Date18 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 17038.,17038.
Citation391 F.2d 596
PartiesRonald Lee HILEMAN, Appellant, v. Lawrence KNABLE, Jr., Police Officer, Andrew Kurey, Police Officer.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Ronald L. Hileman, pro se.

W. E. Shissler, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, Harrisburg, Pa., for appellee.

Before BIGGS, KALODNER and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Hileman appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint and denying his motion for additional findings of fact. The suit was brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the court below held that Hileman's suit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and consequently granted appellees', Knable's and Kurey's, motion to dismiss the complaint.

The issue in the case at bar is whether the trial court applied the proper statute of limitation. The complaint alleges:

"3. Plaintiff was illegally arrested by Mr. L. Knable, Jr., Officer of the Mount Union Borough Police. Officer Knable placed the plaintiff under arrest without a warrant for his arrest."

"4. Plaintiff was confined to the Mount Union jail without a proper warrant or commitment by Mr. L. Knable, Jr. and Mr. A. Kurey, Officers of the Mount Union Borough Police."

There being no federal statute of limitations in respect to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court below properly held that the Pennsylvania statute of limitations for analogous actions should be applied. Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F. 2d 737 (3 Cir. 1967). Pennsylvania has a one year statute of limitations for actions to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution. 12 P.S. § 51. On the other hand, actions for false imprisonment have been held to fall under the Pennsylvania two-year statute of limitations for personal injury. 12 P.S. § 34; Henig v. Odorioso, 256 F. Supp. 276, 280 (E.D.Pa.1966). Hileman concedes that his complaint against Knable is one for false arrest and thus is barred by the one year statute of limitations for the events complained of occurred on or about September 12-14, 1964 and the complaint was received by the clerk of the court below on September 8, 1966.1 Hileman appeals, however, from the judgment that the suit against Kurey also is one of false arrest rather than false imprisonment and thus too is barred by the Pennsylvania one year statute of limitations.

We will affirm the judgment. As was stated by Judge Flood in Rhoads v. Reading Co., 83 Pa.Dist. & Co.R. 168, 169-170 (C.P.Phila.1952): "The Act of July 1, 1935, P.L. 503, 12 P.S. § 51, which imposed a one-year limitation on actions `for malicious prosecution or for false arrest' is pleaded by defendant and made the basis of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff argues that the complaint alleges facts giving rise to causes of action not only for false arrest and malicious prosecution but also for false imprisonment. He asserts that the cause of action for false imprisonment is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Page v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 18 Octubre 1971
    ...of the state in which the cause of action arose. O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 34 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Hileman v. Knable, 391 F.2d 596 (3 Cir. 1968); Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737 (3 Cir. 1967). * * *" Butler, without discussion, in a § 1983 case based upon an alleged malici......
  • Baker v. F & F INVESTMENT
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 5 Marzo 1970
    ...835, 74 S.Ct. 43, 98 L.Ed. 357; Swan v. Board of Higher Education of City of New York, 319 F.2d 56, 59 (2d Cir. 1963); Hileman v. Knable, 391 F.2d 596, 597 (3d Cir. 1968); Beard v. Stephens, 372 F.2d 685, 688 (5th Cir. 1967); Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119, 121 (6th Cir. 1964); Smith v. ......
  • Ammlung v. City of Chester, Civ. A. No. 72-868.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 14 Marzo 1973
    ...the relevant state statute of limitations. O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 34 S. Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Hileman v. Knable, 391 F.2d 596 (3rd Cir. 1968); Henig v. Odorioso, 385 F.2d 491 (3rd Cir. 1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 1016, 88 S.Ct. 1269, 20 L.Ed.2d 166, rehearing denied 391......
  • Kedra v. City of Philadelphia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 29 Junio 1978
    ...so that any incarceration arising out of the arrest is governed by the Act. Gagliardi, at 150, 285 A.2d at 112; Hileman v. Knable, 391 F.2d 596 (3d Cir. 1968) (per curiam); Henig, supra, at 493 n.5; Getz v. Bruch, 400 F.Supp. 1033, 1035 & n.3, 1037 Applying this limitations scheme to the va......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT