William R. Kissinger v. Charles C. Foti, Etc.

Fifth Circuit

William R. Kissinger v. Charles C. Foti, Etc.

544 F.2d 1257, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10617

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 1977

Docket76-2379

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 544 F.2d 1257 (William R. Kissinger v. Charles C. Foti, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William R. Kissinger v. Charles C. Foti, Etc., 544 F.2d 1257, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10617 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff prisoner filed an action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 for damages for an alleged beating incident in a Louisiana jail on or about April 18, 1974. Suit was not filed until February 12,1976, greatly in excess of one year from the alleged tort.

In actions such as this, since Section 1983 has no provision limiting the time within which an action may be brought, the applicable statute of limitations is that which the state would apply if suit for similar relief had been brought in state court. O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 34 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); McGuire v. Baker, 421 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1970); Knowles v. Carson, 419 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1969). The one-year prescriptive period of the Louisiana Civ.Code Art. 3536 governs tort actions for assault and battery in Louisiana. “There is no general rule of law in Louisiana — either legislative or judicial— providing for the interruption or suspension of the prescriptive period because of imprisonment. . . .” Whitsell v. Rodrigues, 351 F.Supp. 1042, 1044 (E.D.La.1972).

Plaintiff’s arguments that he is a “layman-at-law,” a pauper without legal assistance, imprisoned, and has continuously sought administrative relief from various state and federal agencies afford him no defense to the absolute bar of the statute of limitations. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff prisoner filed an action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 for damages for an alleged beating incident in a Louisiana jail on or about April 18, 1974. Suit was not filed until February 12,1976, greatly in excess of one year from the alleged tort.

In actions such as this, since Section 1983 has no provision limiting the time within which an action may be brought, the applicable statute of limitations is that which the state would apply if suit for similar relief had been brought in state court. O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 34 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); McGuire v. Baker, 421 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1970); Knowles v. Carson, 419 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1969). The one-year prescriptive period of the Louisiana Civ.Code Art. 3536 governs tort actions for assault and battery in Louisiana. “There is no general rule of law in Louisiana — either legislative or judicial— providing for the interruption or suspension of the prescriptive period because of imprisonment. . . .” Whitsell v. Rodrigues, 351 F.Supp. 1042, 1044 (E.D.La.1972).

Plaintiff’s arguments that he is a “layman-at-law,” a pauper without legal assistance, imprisoned, and has continuously sought administrative relief from various state and federal agencies afford him no defense to the absolute bar of the statute of limitations. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 F.2d 1257, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-r-kissinger-v-charles-c-foti-etc-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack