Austin v. Brammer, 76-1782

• Decision Date: 20 May 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-1782,76-1782
• Citation: 555 F.2d 142
• Parties: Donald AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence BRAMMER and Alex Lambros, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 142

555 F.2d 142

Donald AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence BRAMMER and Alex Lambros, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 76-1782.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 1977.

Decided and Filed May 20, 1977.

Donald Austin, Lucasville, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

John M. Cronquist, Cronquist, Smith & Marshall, Philip J. Weaver, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.

Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Donald Austin appeals from the district court's dismissal of his suit brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. His complaint charged that defendant police officers of the Ashtabula City Police Department violated his civil rights by giving perjurious testimony in a state criminal action, which resulted in his conviction and sentencing on a charge of rape and breaking and entering. Upon motion of the defendants, the district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with a determination "that the most nearly analogous statute of limitations of the State of Ohio to the factual predicate of plaintiff's complaint is that applying to actions of false arrest and false imprisonment and that the period of limitations thereunder is one year, O.R.C. § 2305.11, and that the within action was not commenced within one year of the date of plaintiff's conviction. . . ." The district court likewise denied plaintiff's motion to vacate and reconsider its earlier judgment upon plaintiff's representation that even if the district court was correct in determining the application of the statute of limitations, that statute was nevertheless tolled because plaintiff was at all times subject to the disability of imprisonment, relying upon O.R.C. § 2305.16 which provides:

Unless otherwise specially provided in sections 2305.04 to 2305.14, inclusive, and sections 1302.98 and 1304.29 of the Revised Code, if a person entitled to bring any action mentioned in such sections, unless for penalty or forfeiture, is, at the time the cause of action accrues, within the age of minority, of unsound mind, or imprisoned, such person may bring it within the respective times limited by such sections, after such disability is removed. When the interests of two or more parties are joint and inseparable, the disability of one shall inure to the benefit of all.

After the cause of action accrues, if the person entitled to bring such action becomes of unsound mind and is adjudicated as such by a court of competent jurisdiction or is confined in an institution or hospital under a diagnosed condition or disease which renders him of unsound mind, the time during which he is of unsound mind and so adjudicated or so confined shall not be computed as any part of the period within which the action must be brought. (Emphasis supplied)

While no findings were made by the district court, it would appear that it was persuaded by the arguments of defendants that the tolling statute would not apply to the facts of this...