Hines v. Board of Ed. of Covington, Ky., 80-3534
| Decision Date | 08 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-3534,80-3534 |
| Citation | 667 F.2d 564 |
| Parties | 2 Ed. Law Rep. 353 Gayle J. HINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COVINGTON, KENTUCKY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Bernard J. Blau, Beverly R. Storm, Jolly, Johnson, Blau & Parry, Newport, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.
Richard S. Nelson, Bruce McClure, Covington, Ky., Louis DeFalaise, Covington, Ky., for Blade and Bennett.
Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, MARTIN and JONES, Circuit Judges.
In this case appellant Gayle Hines appeals from the order dismissing her civil rights action filed under § 1983 because, as found by the District Judge, it was barred by the applicable Kentucky statute of limitations.
Appellant Hines was a non-tenured teacher in the Covington schools. In her fourth year of teaching, the Board Superintendent, according to her complaint, accused her of involvement in illicit sex and illegal drugs and requested her resignation. She denied the charges and refused to resign. Thereafter Hines' name was omitted from the list of teachers recommended for re-employment. As reasons for non-renewal the Superintendent charged unprofessional conduct and conduct amounting to insubordination. When Hines requested a hearing before the Board on her renewal, her requests were denied.
After unsuccessfully litigating a state law claim that she had been illegally "dismissed," appellant filed her current action under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a federal due process violation in the failure of the Board to grant her a hearing to refute charges made against her.
The District Judge in an opinion 1 dated July 3, 1980 ruled that under the fact situation here involved, the most analogous state law statute of limitations was that of an action for slander as to which Kentucky applies a one-year limitation under K.R.S. 413.140. He thereupon dismissed the complaint.
Our review of this record occasions our affirming for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the District Judge referred to above.
1 We have considered the District Judge's suggestion that a uniform statute of limitations for actions under § 1983 would be helpful to the federal trial courts. Congress, however in 1866 did not provide one and neither has the U. S. Supreme Court, note Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 98 S.Ct. 1991, 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978), both Justice Marshall's opinion for the court (p. 585, 98 S.Ct. p. 1992) and Justice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Small v. Inhabitants of the City of Belfast
...of appeals have applied tort or personal-injury limitations periods for section 1983 claims.6See, e.g., Hines v. Board of Education, 667 F.2d 564 (6th Cir. 1982) (per curiam), aff'g 492 F.Supp. 469 (E.D.Ky.1980) limitations period for slander actions governs § 1983 claim of defamatory condu......
-
Wilson v. Garcia
...Florida statute), with Williams v. Rhoden, 629 F.2d 1099, 1104 (CA5 1980) (4-year Florida statute); Hines v. Board of Education of Covington, Ky., 667 F.2d 564, 565 (CA6 1982) (1-year Kentucky statute), with Garner v. Stephens, 460 F.2d 1144, 1148 (CA6 1972) (5-year Kentucky statute); and W......
-
Thomas v. Shipka
...the required analysis." 524 F.Supp. at 822 (quoting Hines v. Bd. of Educ., 492 F.Supp. 469, 472 (E.D.Ky.1980), aff'd, 667 F.2d 564 (6th Cir.1982) (per curiam )). Judge Spiegel also noted that the Sixth Circuit had previously applied three different statutes of limitations to civil rights cl......
-
Woods v. City of Dayton, Ohio
...statute of limitations in § 1983 actions, since neither Congress nor the U.S. Supreme Court has provided for same. 667 F.2d 564, 564-65 n. 1 (6th Cir.1982) (per curiam). Likewise, commentators have advocated the adoption of a uniform rule (such as the state statute of limitation for actions......