Krum v. Sheppard, Civ. A. No. 5152.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
Citation255 F. Supp. 994
Decision Date30 June 1966
PartiesJean Cobb KRUM, Plaintiff, v. Richard D. SHEPPARD and Gordon P. Hurley, jointly and severally, Defendants.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 5152.

255 F. Supp. 994

Jean Cobb KRUM, Plaintiff,
v.
Richard D. SHEPPARD and Gordon P. Hurley, jointly and severally, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 5152.

United States District Court W. D. Michigan, S. D.

June 30, 1966.


Wickett & Erickson, Kalamazoo, Mich., Charles C. Wickett, Kalamazoo, Mich., of counsel, for plaintiff.

Robert C. Goussy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for defendants.

OPINION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

FOX, District Judge.

The central issue in this case is whether the plaintiff's cause of action, if any.

255 F. Supp. 995
under the federal civil rights act, is barred by the Michigan statute of limitations relating to "actions to recover damages for injuries to person or property."

The complaint alleges that the defendants, Richard D. Sheppard and Gordon P. Hurley, state police officers, deprived the plaintiff of rights guaranteed him by the Constitution and laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985. The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground, among others, that the statute of limitations is a bar to this action.

Since the factual background of this case is fully set out in People v. Krum, 374 Mich. 356, 132 N.W.2d 69 (1965), the following summary of the facts should be adequate.

The defendants were maintaining a road block at the Mackinac Bridge, searching for two escaped convicts. When a passenger in the back seat of plaintiff's car refused to move a duffel bag and some equipment after being requested to do so by defendant Sheppard, and after the car had been moved to the side of the bridge, as ordered by the officers, the plaintiff got out and told the officers that there was no reason for them to search the car. The defendants claimed that this aroused their suspicions, and a rather animated discussion followed.

At some point during this discussion, Trooper Hurley resumed checking other cars. While checking another car, he claimed that the plaintiff stepped between him and the car, asking for his name and badge number, and that finally the plaintiff brushed against him, moving his carbine to one side. The plaintiff was then arrested and taken to the Mackinac County jail.

Following the plaintiff's arrest, his companions allowed the car to be searched, and no fugitives or illegal articles were discovered.

In April of 1961, the plaintiff was convicted of interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties, and the Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed his conviction.

Section 1983 of Title 42 U.S.C.A. was derived from, "Act Apr. 20, 1871 c. 22, § 1, 17 Stat. 13." This Act grew out of a message sent to Congress by President Grant on March 23, 1871, in which he said:

"A condition of affairs now exists in some States of the Union rendering life and property insecure and the carrying of the mails and the collection of the revenue dangerous. The proof that such a condition of affairs exists in some localities is now before the Senate. That the power to correct these evils is beyond the control of State authorities I do not doubt; that the power of the Executive of the United States, acting within the limits of existing laws, is sufficient for present emergencies is not clear. Therefore, I urgently recommend such legislation as in the judgment of Congress shall effectually secure life, liberty, and property, and the enforcement of law in all parts of the United States * * *.7
7. Cong Globe 42d Cong, 1st Sess, p. 244." (Emphasis supplied.) Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492, 497. (1961).

The Section in question creates a federal right to be enforced by federal courts. Monroe v. Pape, supra, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d at 501. Section 1983 of Title 42 U.S.C.A. states:

"Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

There is no federal statute of limitations applicable to actions under that Section of the Civil Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act does not itself contain

255 F. Supp. 996
any provision limiting the time within which such actions may be brought

It is settled that: "There being no federal statute fixing a limitation on civil rights actions, the applicable statute of the forum state would control. Citing O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 322, 34 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed. 980, 982; Mohler v. Miller, 235 F.2d 153, 155 (CA 6, 1956); Wilson v. Hinman, 172 F.2d 914, 915 (CA 10, 1949), cert. den. 336 U.S. 970, 69 S.Ct. 933, 93 L.Ed. 1121; Kenney v. Killian, 133 F.Supp. 571, 575-576 (W.D.Mich., 1955)." Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119, 121 (CA 6, 1964).

The Michigan statute provides: "All actions and rights shall be governed and determined according to the law under which the right accrued, in respect to the limitations of such actions or right of entry." M.S.A. § 27A.5869, Comp. Laws Supp. 1961, § 600.5869.

The search of plaintiff's automobile and the arrest of the plaintiff, which are alleged to have been illegal in Counts I and II, both occurred on September 26, 1959. Plaintiff's cause of action, if any, on these two Counts accrued on that date.

Count III alleges that the defendant Hurley filed a false complaint against the plaintiff and that both of the defendants testified falsely at the two preliminary hearings and at the trial, all of which is alleged to be in deprivation of the plaintiff's civil rights. The complaint which charged the plaintiff with obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties, was filed on September 27, 1959. Following a preliminary examination in February of 1960, an amended complaint was signed in October of 1960, and a second preliminary examination was held in November of 1960. The trial was held in April of 1961.

Therefore, any rights which plaintiff has under Count III accrued before the end of April 1961. Since Count IV alleges a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights by means of the acts alleged in the other three Counts, any cause of action for conspiracy accrued not later than the end of April 1961.

The statute which was in effect at the time any cause of action may have accrued to the plaintiff is M.S.A. § 27.605, Comp.Laws 1948, § 609.13, which read in pertinent parts, as follows:

"All actions in any of the courts of this state shall be commenced within 6 years next after the causes of action shall accrue, and not afterward, except as hereinafter specified: Provided, however,
1. * * *
2. Actions to recover damages for injuries to person or property and actions for trespass upon lands shall be brought within
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Elk Grove Firefighters Local No. 2340 v. Willis, No. 74 C 2412.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • January 29, 1975
    ...477 F.2d 785 (3d Cir. 1973); Brown v. Board of Trustees of LaGrange Ind. School Dist., 187 F.2d 20 (5th Cir. 1951); Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F.Supp. 994 (W.D.Mich.1966). There have been exceptions to the rule, however, where the individual aggrieved party could not be represented in the contex......
  • Bergman v. United States, No. G 77-6.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • November 19, 1982
    ...forum state to determine whether Plaintiffs' claims are time barred. Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119 (CA 6 1964); Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F.Supp. 994 (WD Mich.1966), aff'd 407 F.2d 490 (CA 6 1967). Kilgore v. City of Mansfield, Ohio, 679 F.2d 632 (CA 6 1982). Accordingly, I am bound to appl......
  • Citizens for Pre-Trial Justice v. Goldfarb, PRE-TRIAL
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • February 20, 1979
    ...opinion November 24, 1975, extending the injunction to prohibit this practice. 5 Defendants' brief, p. 11. 6 Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F.Supp. 994 (W.D.Mich., 1966), Aff'd, 407 F.2d 490 (CA 6, 7 Madison v. Wood, 410 F.2d 564 (CA 6, 1969). 8 See note 3, Supra. 9 The court's order also included o......
  • Garcia v. Wilson, Nos. 83-1017
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • March 30, 1984
    ...States. When one is deprived of his civil rights, it is clear that the injury is to his person ....' " Id. (quoting Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F.Supp. 994, 997 In subsequent employment discrimination suits, however, the court has applied state statutes governing a liability created by statute. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Elk Grove Firefighters Local No. 2340 v. Willis, No. 74 C 2412.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • January 29, 1975
    ...477 F.2d 785 (3d Cir. 1973); Brown v. Board of Trustees of LaGrange Ind. School Dist., 187 F.2d 20 (5th Cir. 1951); Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F.Supp. 994 (W.D.Mich.1966). There have been exceptions to the rule, however, where the individual aggrieved party could not be represented in the contex......
  • Bergman v. United States, No. G 77-6.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • November 19, 1982
    ...forum state to determine whether Plaintiffs' claims are time barred. Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119 (CA 6 1964); Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F.Supp. 994 (WD Mich.1966), aff'd 407 F.2d 490 (CA 6 1967). Kilgore v. City of Mansfield, Ohio, 679 F.2d 632 (CA 6 1982). Accordingly, I am bound to appl......
  • Citizens for Pre-Trial Justice v. Goldfarb, PRE-TRIAL
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • February 20, 1979
    ...opinion November 24, 1975, extending the injunction to prohibit this practice. 5 Defendants' brief, p. 11. 6 Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F.Supp. 994 (W.D.Mich., 1966), Aff'd, 407 F.2d 490 (CA 6, 7 Madison v. Wood, 410 F.2d 564 (CA 6, 1969). 8 See note 3, Supra. 9 The court's order also included o......
  • Garcia v. Wilson, Nos. 83-1017
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • March 30, 1984
    ...States. When one is deprived of his civil rights, it is clear that the injury is to his person ....' " Id. (quoting Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F.Supp. 994, 997 In subsequent employment discrimination suits, however, the court has applied state statutes governing a liability created by statute. S......
  • 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