Randy Tieszen v. Judge John Bastian

Eighth Circuit

Randy Tieszen v. Judge John Bastian

535 F. App'x 536

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 23, 2013

Docket13-2893

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 535 F. App'x 536 (Randy Tieszen v. Judge John Bastian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randy Tieszen v. Judge John Bastian, 535 F. App'x 536 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Randy Tieszen appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. After careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam), we conclude that dismissal was proper.

Tieszen claimed that state criminal proceedings against him in 2001 were the result of a conspiracy to remove him from his property by means of false arrest and false imprisonment. He conceded that he had known the underlying facts since 2001. He did not commence this action until 2011, however, and he offered nothing to support tolling of the limitation period for bringing suit. Thus, Tieszen’s claims— whether brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or state tort law — are time-barred. See S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-15.2 (action brought under federal civil-rights statute must commence within 3 years after alleged constitutional deprivation occurred), § 15-2-14 (3-year limitation period for personal-injury action), § 15-2-15 (2-year limitation period for specified tort actions); Walker v. Barrett, 650 F.3d 1198, 1205 (8th Cir.2011) (§ 1983 claims accruing in particular state are governed by that state’s statute of limitations for personal-injury claims).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Randy Tieszen appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. After careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam), we conclude that dismissal was proper.

Tieszen claimed that state criminal proceedings against him in 2001 were the result of a conspiracy to remove him from his property by means of false arrest and false imprisonment. He conceded that he had known the underlying facts since 2001. He did not commence this action until 2011, however, and he offered nothing to support tolling of the limitation period for bringing suit. Thus, Tieszen’s claims— whether brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or state tort law — are time-barred. See S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-15.2 (action brought under federal civil-rights statute must commence within 3 years after alleged constitutional deprivation occurred), § 15-2-14 (3-year limitation period for personal-injury action), § 15-2-15 (2-year limitation period for specified tort actions); Walker v. Barrett, 650 F.3d 1198, 1205 (8th Cir.2011) (§ 1983 claims accruing in particular state are governed by that state’s statute of limitations for personal-injury claims).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 F. App'x 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randy-tieszen-v-judge-john-bastian-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack