Cooper v. Hutchinson Police Dept., 52465
Decision Date | 13 November 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 52465,52465 |
Citation | 6 Kan.App.2d 806,636 P.2d 184 |
Parties | Kenneth 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. |
Court | Kansas 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.
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:
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:
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.
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-
Kristensen v. Strinden
...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.
...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.
...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
...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 ......