Cooper v. Hutchinson Police Dept., 52465

Decision Date13 November 1981
Docket NumberNo. 52465,52465
Citation6 Kan.App.2d 806,636 P.2d 184
PartiesKenneth R. COOPER, Appellant, v. HUTCHINSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Chief of Police Bob Adams, Officers R. L. Conlin, Jr., # 11, B. J. Hill, # 9, R. L. Moore, # 44, S. Gonzales, # 5, Tracy and Foust, and a Jailer by the name of Gary, Appellees.
CourtKansas Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. K.S.A. 60-513, the two-year statute of limitations, is the applicable statute for actions brought in Kansas for the injury to or denial of a person's civil rights.

2. State courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over federal civil rights claims.

Ernest H. Moulos, Wichita, for appellant.

Steven L. Foulston, Wichita, for appellees.

Before HERD, Justice Presiding, SWINEHART, J., and LEWIS L. McLAUGHLIN, District Judge Retired, Assigned.

SWINEHART, Judge:

This is an appeal by plaintiff Kenneth R. Cooper from the judgment of the District Court of Reno County which denied plaintiff's motion to amend his petition and sustained defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants.

On May 12, 1980, plaintiff filed a pro se petition in the District Court of Reno County, as follows:

"I, Kenneth R. Cooper, file suit against the Hutchinson Police Dept. and cheif (sic) of police Bob Adams, and officers R. L. Conlon Jr. # 11, B. J. Hill # 9, R. L. Moore # 44, G. Gonzales # 5, Tracy, and Foust, and a Jailer by the name of Gary, for the beatings and assualt (sic) that they committed against me on 5-13-1978 about 10.30 pm. for damages in excess of $10,000 and punitive damages."

On June 10, 1980, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting that K.S.A. 60-514, the one-year statute of limitations, barred plaintiff's cause of action.

On June 19, 1980, plaintiff, through counsel, filed a motion to amend his petition, by alleging a cause of action based on violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff's amended allegations read in part:

"1. That petitioner alleges that on or about May 13, 1978, his rights pursuant to the I., IV., V., VI., VIII., IX., and XIV. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States by the Hutchinson Police Department and officers thereof.

"2. That petitioner alleges that said officers conspired to violated (sic) his rights.

"3. That said law enforcement officers did violate specificly (sic) petitioner's right to 'free speech', 'assistance of counsel', not to have 'Cruel and unusual punishment' inflicted and his right to privacy and due process of law and the equal protection of the law."

The motions were heard by the trial court and the matters were taken under advisement. On July 18, 1980, the trial court entered its memorandum opinion in which it granted defendants' motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff's motion to amend. The court's reasoning was as follows:

"The plaintiff wishes to amend to allege violation of his civil rights under the U.S. Constitution. Since the tort action is barred by the statute of limitations, this Court would not have ancillary jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's alleged cause of action for civil rights violation, a federal action."

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to amend his petition. The trial court's reason for its ruling, as was stated above, was because of a mistaken belief that the trial court would not have jurisdiction to hear the civil rights action. Since plaintiff's original assault and battery cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, what would be left, if the petition were amended, would be a civil rights action. The action is comparable to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is a well-accepted rule of law that state courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over federal civil rights actions. The United States Supreme Court commented on this rule in a recent footnote in Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 283-84 n.7, 100 S.Ct. 553, 558 n.7, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980):

"7. We note that the California courts accepted jurisdiction of this federal claim (§ 1983). That exercise of jurisdiction appears to be consistent with the general rule that where ' "an act of Congress gives a penalty to a party aggrieved, without specifying a remedy for its enforcement, there is no reason why it should not be enforced, if not provided otherwise by some act of Congress, by a proper action in a State court. " ' Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386, 391 (67 S.Ct. 810, 813, 91 L.Ed. 967 (1947)), quoting Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 137 (23 L.Ed. 833 (1876)). See also Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 36, n.17 (96 S.Ct. 2413, 2430, n.17, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976)) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Grubb v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 281 U.S. 470, 476 (50 S.Ct. 374, 377, 74 L.Ed. 972 (1930)). We have never considered, however, the question whether a State must entertain a claim under § 1983. We note that where the same type of claim, if arising under state law, would be enforced in the state courts, the state courts are generally not free to refuse enforcement of the federal claim. Testa v. Katt, supra, at 394 (67 S.Ct. at 814). But see Chamberlain v. Brown, 223 Tenn. 25, 442 S.W.2d 248 (1969)."

We find that the trial court erred in failing to accept jurisdiction and hear the federal civil rights cause of action, and for this reason should be reversed.

Defendants further contend that if the amendment to the petition is allowed, it should not be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Kristensen v. Strinden
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1983
    ...477, 20 Ill.Dec. 304, 379 N.E.2d 1372 (1978); Alberty v. Daniel, 25 Ill.App.3d 291, 323 N.E.2d 110 (1974); Cooper v. Hutchinson Police Dept., 6 Kan.App.2d 806, 636 P.2d 184 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Miller v. City of Overland Park, 231 Kan. 557, 646 P.2d 1114 (1982); Thiboutot v. ......
  • Wagher v. Guy's Foods, Inc.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1994
    ...60-513 is properly applied here. See Miller v. City of Overland Park, 231 Kan. 557, 646 P.2d 1114 (1982); Cooper v. Hutchinson Police Department, 6 Kan.App.2d 806, 636 P.2d 184 (1981), rev. denied 230 Kan. 817 (1982)." 232 Kan. at 530, 657 P.2d From the court's listing of causes of action i......
  • Marx v. Truck Renting and Leasing Ass'n Inc.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1987
    ...Iowa: Blessum v. Howard County Bd. of Supervisors, 295 N.W.2d 836, 844 (Iowa 1980); Kansas: Cooper v. Hutchinson Police Dep't., 6 Kan.App.2d 806, 807-08, 636 P.2d 184, 185-86 (1981); Kentucky: Scott v. Campbell County Bd. of Educ., 618 S.W.2d 589, 590 (Ky.App.1981); Louisiana: Ricard v. Sta......
  • Miller v. City of Overland Park, 53763
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1982
    ...the essential nature of the federal claim and comparison to similar state actions." 580 F.2d at 384. In Cooper v. Hutchinson Police Department, 6 Kan.App.2d 806, 636 P.2d 184 (1981), our own Court of Appeals had occasion to consider the appropriate statute of limitations to be applied in a ......
  • 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