Franks v. Perry

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: October 29, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02115
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

MICHAEL JAMES FRANKS PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 2:24-CV-2115

SHERIFF DANIEL PERRY (Crawford County, Arkansas); CHIEF OF POLICE JOSH WINFORD (Dyer, Arkansas); DEPUTY ZACHARY KING (Crawford County Sheriff’s Department); and JOHN DOE OFFICERS DEFENDANTS

ORDER Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 7) of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Magistrate Judge Ford recommends dismissing Claim One of the Complaint, which alleges the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to excessive force. The incident in question occurred on May 20, 2021, and the Complaint was filed more than three years later. The Magistrate Judge explained in the R&R that Claim One was subject to dismissal because it was filed after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the R&R (Doc. 8), arguing that the statute of limitations on Claim One should be five years rather than three years. After a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection is without merit. Claims under § 1983 are governed by the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that a three-year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims for excessive force filed in Arkansas. See Spradling v. Hastings, 912 F.3d 1114, 1119 (8th Cir. 2019); Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992); Morton v. City of Little Rock, 934 F.2d 180, 183 (8th Cir. 1991); Lyons v. Goodson, 787 F.2d 411, 412 (8th Cir. 1986). Therefore, the Objection is OVERRULED. IT IS ORDERED that the R&R it is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Pursuant to

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Claim One is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s allegations in Claim Two concerning wrongful confinement from May 20, 2021, through September 8, 2021, will remain for service and further review, and the case should remain referred to the Magistrate Judge. IT IS SO ORDERED on this 29th day of October, 2024. /s/ Timothy L. Brooks TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE