Williams v. Coughlan
Citation | 244 F.2d 6 |
Decision Date | 30 April 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 15405.,15405. |
Parties | James A. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. C. P. COUGHLAN, Ted McRoberts, Otheal Waitland, Ladessa Nordale, T. N. Gore, and R. J. McNealy, Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
James A. Williams, in pro. per.
R. J. McNealy, Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellees.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and STEPHENS and POPE, Circuit Judges.
Williams appeals from an order of the United States District Court of Alaska, Fourth Division, dismissing his action against the above-named defendants, without prejudice, on the ground that since Williams is a felon confined in the Federal Penitentiary at McNeil Island, Steilacoom, Washington, he has no capacity to sue under Section 65-2-9, A.C.L.A.1949, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
Nothing in the record before us indicates that any of the above named defendants, except McNealy, were served with process in the case or subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the court below by participating in the proceedings there. McNealy, the sole defendant over whom this court has jurisdiction, moved the court below to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations when appellant filed his complaint on October 15, 1956. Hence it is necessary to decide what is the exact nature of the claim or claims which appellant's complaint seeks to assert against McNealy in order to determine what period of limitation, if any, applies.
The portion of the complaint dealing with McNealy reads as follows:
Appellant first alleges that McNealy together with Nordale and Gore "unlawfully compelled" appellant to stand trial on a charge of selling liquor without a license "without due process of law" and in the absence of witnesses whom appellant had sought to have subpoenaed. Disregarding the words "unlawfully" and "without due process of law" as mere conclusions of law by which appellant seeks to characterize the acts of appellee, we find that appellant asserts that by compelling appellant to go to trial without the aid of his witnesses appellee exposed himself to civil liability in damages for injuries inflicted on appellant as a result of that trial. The claim thus asserted clearly sounds in tort only; no element of contractual liability appears.
Appellant next alleges that appellee at that trial acted "unlawfully" as defense attorney with the intent of having appellant "unlawfully" committed to jail. Construing this allegation liberally in favor of appellant, we find no indication that he intends to assert by this language anything other than a tort claim against appellee for depriving appellant unjustly of his liberty.
Finally appellant alleges that, together with the other named defendants, appellee in his capacity as United States Attorney caused appellant to be arrested on criminal complaints sworn out by named defendants Coughlan and Waitland "without probable cause or investigation" required by the Constitution. This allegation, like those previously discussed, purports to state a claim in tort against appellee....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gowin v. Altmiller
... ... be raised by a motion to dismiss when the time alleged in the complaint shows that the action was not brought within the statutory period, Williams v. Coughlan, 244 F.2d 6 (9th Cir. 1957), as pointed out by Professor Moore, "Even where the defect does not appear on the face of the complaint, ... ...
-
Modica v. Russell
...to be similar to California's and holding that "subsequent reincarceration did not reinstate the tolling statute"); Williams v. Coughlan, 244 F.2d 6, 8 (9th Cir. 1957) (construing Alaska's tolling provision similar to that of California and holding that the statute was tolled "only during t......
-
Alaniz v. Enterline
...Oregon tolling provision similar to California's and holding that tolling ceased upon prisoner's release on parole); Williams v. Coughlan, 244 F.2d 6, 8 (9th Cir. 1957) (statute of limitations not tolled after prisoner released). b. Equitable Tolling California courts also toll the limitati......
-
Lewis v. Shuck
... ... Williams v. Coughlan, 244 F.2d 6, 8 (9th Cir. 1957) (applying Alaska law); Brown v. United States, 342 F.Supp. 987, 995 (E.D.Ark.1972), aff'd in part and ... ...