Howard Walter Williams v. John J. Hollins, Assistant Attorney General for Davidson County, Tenn., and Bethel James Qualls, a Police Officer

428 F.2d 1221, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11330
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 7, 1970
Docket19548_1
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 428 F.2d 1221 (Howard Walter Williams v. John J. Hollins, Assistant Attorney General for Davidson County, Tenn., and Bethel James Qualls, a Police Officer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Howard Walter Williams v. John J. Hollins, Assistant Attorney General for Davidson County, Tenn., and Bethel James Qualls, a Police Officer, 428 F.2d 1221, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11330 (6th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Howard Walter Williams, Plaintiff in the District Court, appeals from dismissal of his complaint for damages against Appellees John J. Hollins and Bethel James Qualls. His complaint charged that these persons conspired and acted together to deprive him of his civil rights, secured to him in Title 42, U.S. C.A. Section 1983. The alleged conspiracy is claimed to have brought about appellant’s trial and conviction for robbery in the year 1965. The present action was instituted on January 9, 1969. A motion for summary judgment was made by defendants on the ground that plaintiff’s action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided by Tenn. Code Anno. § 28-304.

In Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231, 233 (6th Cir. 1968) this Court held:

“Since the Civil Rights Act itself contains no limitation period, the courts will look to the most analogous statute of limitations where the cause of action arose.”

There we dealt with the Michigan statute which had a provision that the statute of limitations does not apply if the cause of action arose while the prospective complainant is in jail. We held, however, that since the cause of action of the plaintiff did not arise while he was in jail, the statute was not tolled. Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1964).

Tennessee has no statute tolling the statute of limitations while a prospective complainant is in jail.

*1222 In Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737 (3rd Cir. 1967) the Court said:

“We can discern no reason why the statute should be tolled because the appellant was incarcerated.” 375 F.2d at 739.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ojeda Ojeda v. El Vocero de Puerto Rico, Inc.
137 P.R. Dec. 315 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1994)
Windsor v. a Federal Executive Agency
614 F. Supp. 1255 (M.D. Tennessee, 1984)
Berndt v. Stinson
562 F. Supp. 28 (E.D. Tennessee, 1982)
Campbell v. Guy
520 F. Supp. 53 (E.D. Michigan, 1981)
Berry v. Arthur
474 F. Supp. 427 (D. South Dakota, 1979)
Stephens v. Curtis
450 F. Supp. 141 (S.D. Texas, 1978)
Willett v. Wells
469 F. Supp. 748 (E.D. Tennessee, 1977)
Miller v. Smith
431 F. Supp. 821 (N.D. Texas, 1977)
Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
489 F.2d 525 (Sixth Circuit, 1973)
Kaltenborn v. Excel Personnel
339 F. Supp. 129 (W.D. Tennessee, 1972)
Beckum v. Tennessee Hotel
341 F. Supp. 991 (W.D. Tennessee, 1971)
Snyder v. Swann
313 F. Supp. 1267 (E.D. Tennessee, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
428 F.2d 1221, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-walter-williams-v-john-j-hollins-assistant-attorney-general-for-ca6-1970.