Mohler v. Miller, No. 12782.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtSIMONS, , and McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit
Citation235 F.2d 153
PartiesChester Lee MOHLER, Appellant, v. Earl MILLER, Orville Phillippe, John Truchly, Joseph Brown and Peppino Puleo, Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 12782.
Decision Date29 June 1956

235 F.2d 153 (1956)

Chester Lee MOHLER, Appellant,
v.
Earl MILLER, Orville Phillippe, John Truchly, Joseph Brown and Peppino Puleo, Appellees.

No. 12782.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

June 29, 1956.


235 F.2d 154

Lawrence E. Eaton, Detroit, Mich., Paul T. Dwyer, Nathaniel H. Goldstick, Detroit, Mich., on the brief, for appellees.

Chester Lee Mohler, Jackson, Mich., pro se.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

SIMONS, Chief Judge.

The appellant was sentenced in the Recorders Court of the city of Detroit on his plea of guilty, for the crime of breaking and entering in the nighttime. He had been arrested on September 3, 1953 by five Detroit police officers and contends that the arrest without a warrant, the search of his home, the confiscation of his property were in violation of his constitutional rights. On August 25, 1955, he filed a complaint with the clerk of the district court against all five arresting officers for damages suffered by alleged false arrest and imprisonment under color of law and in violation of his constitutional rights. Upon motion of the defendants, his complaint was dismissed as not filed within the limitation fixed for like actions by the Michigan statutes.

As submitted to us upon briefs and argument, the controlling issue is whether his suit was timely. The statute involved is § 609.13, Mich.C.L.1948 which provides that actions for false imprisonment or malicious prosecution shall be brought within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not afterwards. If his action was begun by the filing of his complaint it was within time. Under Rules 3 and 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., an action is commenced by the filing of a complaint, the issuance forthwith by the clerk of a summons and its delivery to the marshal for service. It is the filing of

235 F.2d 155
the complaint, when followed by the lodging of the writ with the marshal, that tolls the statute of limitations

The appellees based their motions for dismissal on the fact that the appellant had failed to pay the filing fee and that the clerk was, therefore, not authorized to issue the summons until the fee was paid. It appears however, that the appellant accompanied his complaint by a petition to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and though the petition was neither signed nor verified, its receipt by the clerk was acknowledged and it was not returned to him. On October 7, 1953, the district judge considered the forma pauperis petition and granted it, whereupon, the clerk issued...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 practice notes
  • Hoffman v. Halden, No. 15782.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 28, 1959
    ...Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 1949, 337 U.S. 530, 533, 69 S.Ct. 1233, 93 L.Ed. 1520; cf. Mohler v. Miller, 6 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 153. In civil conspiracy cases for treble damages under the Antitrust laws, the statute of limitations runs from the overt act alleged to have cau......
  • MHC v. INTERN. UNION, UNITED MINE WKRS. OF AMERICA, Civ. A. No. 85-296.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • March 2, 1988
    ...The manner in which an action is commenced, and when it is deemed to have commenced is governed by the law of the forum. Mohler v. Miller, 235 F.2d 153, 155 (6th Cir.1956). Federal Courts look to F.R. Civ.P. 3 and 4 to determine when an action is commenced. Smith v. Peters, 482 F.2d 799 (6t......
  • Jones v. United Gas Improvement Corporation, Civ. A. No. 73-2485.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • January 6, 1975
    ...of City of New York, 319 F.2d 56 (2d Cir. 1963); Smith v. Cremins, 308 F.2d 187, 98 A.L.R.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1962); Mohler v. Miller, 235 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1956). Under Pennsylvania law, the Statute of Limitations is one year for false arrest, slander, malicious prosecution and certain acti......
  • Smith v. Cremins, No. 17447.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 20, 1962
    ...created by statute" was not provided for in the state statutes. See Jackson v. Duke, 259 F.2d 3 (5th Cir. 1958); Mohler v. Miller, 235 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1956); Weiner v. City of Philadelphia, 184 F.Supp. 795 (E.D.Pa.1960); Johnson v. Yeilding, 165 F.Supp. 76 (N.D.Ala. 1958); Kenney v. Kill......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
42 cases
  • Hoffman v. Halden, No. 15782.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 28, 1959
    ...Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 1949, 337 U.S. 530, 533, 69 S.Ct. 1233, 93 L.Ed. 1520; cf. Mohler v. Miller, 6 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 153. In civil conspiracy cases for treble damages under the Antitrust laws, the statute of limitations runs from the overt act alleged to have cau......
  • MHC v. INTERN. UNION, UNITED MINE WKRS. OF AMERICA, Civ. A. No. 85-296.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • March 2, 1988
    ...The manner in which an action is commenced, and when it is deemed to have commenced is governed by the law of the forum. Mohler v. Miller, 235 F.2d 153, 155 (6th Cir.1956). Federal Courts look to F.R. Civ.P. 3 and 4 to determine when an action is commenced. Smith v. Peters, 482 F.2d 799 (6t......
  • Jones v. United Gas Improvement Corporation, Civ. A. No. 73-2485.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • January 6, 1975
    ...of City of New York, 319 F.2d 56 (2d Cir. 1963); Smith v. Cremins, 308 F.2d 187, 98 A.L.R.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1962); Mohler v. Miller, 235 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1956). Under Pennsylvania law, the Statute of Limitations is one year for false arrest, slander, malicious prosecution and certain acti......
  • Smith v. Cremins, No. 17447.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 20, 1962
    ...created by statute" was not provided for in the state statutes. See Jackson v. Duke, 259 F.2d 3 (5th Cir. 1958); Mohler v. Miller, 235 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1956); Weiner v. City of Philadelphia, 184 F.Supp. 795 (E.D.Pa.1960); Johnson v. Yeilding, 165 F.Supp. 76 (N.D.Ala. 1958); Kenney v. Kill......
  • 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