Lynn v. Danforth, 74 CV 213-C.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 74 CV 213-C.,74 CV 213-C. |
| Citation | 423 F. Supp. 557 |
| Parties | Richard J. LYNN, Plaintiff, v. John C. DANFORTH, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Walter R. Simpson, Sheridan, Sanders, Carr, White & Mason, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
J. Paul Allred, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for defendant.
FINDINGS AND OPINION
On November 25, 1974, plaintiff Richard J. Lynn filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against defendant John C. Danforth alleging that on November 26, 1969, defendant acting in his official capacity as the elected and acting Attorney General of the State of Missouri and under the color of the authority of the Missouri State Liquor Control seized plaintiff's boat, the "River Queen" in the name of the State of Missouri under the provisions of Section 311.380 RSMo on the ground that the River Queen was illegally transporting intoxicating liquor in the state of Missouri. Plaintiff asserts that at the time of his seizure there was no intoxicating liquor aboard the River Queen, which defendant knew or should have known at the time of such seizure of the vessel at its moorings on the Missouri River at St. Joseph, Missouri. The above action by defendant, according to plaintiff, deprived plaintiff of his constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) and deprived him of property without due process of law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States "by wrongful conversion of his property by a state official under color of state law."
Plaintiff prayed for actual damages in the sum of $50,000.00 and further alleging intentional and malicious misconduct by defendant, asked punitive damages in the sum of $500,000.00. On July 17, 1976, again relying on 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, plaintiff filed his amended complaint in two counts. In Count I in addition to his originally filed claims of illegal seizure of the River Queen he added that under the provisions of Section 311.840 RSMo the defendant signed and filed about 8:00 p. m. the evening of November 26, 1976, a petition to declare the River Queen contraband and forfeited. (See State v. Brady, S.Ct.Mo., 1971, 472 S.W.2d 356, for the history and result of this forfeiture case.) Plaintiff asserted that defendant kept the vessel under seizure and in his possession until April 25, 1970, during which time the vessel was extensively damaged. Also in Count I of his amended complaint plaintiff asserted that defendant's conduct deprived him of the constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable and warrantless seizure of his property under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and his right not to be deprived of property without due process of law and the right to equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment "by wrongful conversion of his property by a state official under color of state law". He again asked $50,000.00 in actual damages. In Count II he realleged Count I, adding that defendant's actions were intentional, malicious and in bad faith and requested punitive damages in the sum of $500,000.00.
Defendant by way of defense, among others, moved to dismiss the action because (1) it fails to state a claim under laws of the United States, particularly under Section 1983, upon which plaintiff relies; (2) that defendant is immune from any liability to plaintiff under Section 1983, for the acts complained of by plaintiff; and (3) that "the statute of limitations of three years bars plaintiff's claim which plaintiff alleges arose on November 26, 1969. Defendant also has moved for summary judgment on basically the same grounds. Because the Court deems the Statute of Limitations issue to be dispositive of the case, that asserted defense is the only one which the undersigned Judge will discuss and rule.
Since there is no limitation provision contained in the civil rights acts, these actions are governed by the most applicable statute of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Armontrout, 83-1275
...(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 875, 101 S.Ct. 218, 66 L.Ed.2d 96 (1980) (against city and various city officials); Lynn v. Danforth, 423 F.Supp. 557 (W.D.Mo.1976) (against state attorney B. Continuing Violations. Foster also alleges that, although the penitentiary hospital treated him i......
-
Bandlow v. James, 82-0195-CV-W-5.
...States Constitution, a three-year period of limitations has been applied. White v. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276 (8th Cir. 1980); Lynn v. Danforth, 423 F.Supp. 557 (W.D.Mo. 1976). In the Lynn case, for example, the plaintiff sued the Attorney General of the State of Missouri under Section 1983 for th......
- Simpson v. Alaska State Com'n for Human Rights
-
Nylon v. City of Wellston, 80-1353C(2).
...year statute of limitations provided in § 516.130(1), R.S.Mo. (1969). Peterson v. Fink, 515 F.2d 815 (8th Cir. 1975); Lynn v. Danforth, 423 F.Supp. 557 (W.D.Mo.1976); Smith v. Stamps, 489 F.Supp. 81 (E.D.Mo.1980). That section applies to actions against an officer for liability incurred by ......