 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Young v. Shirley5/27/2005
AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART, AND REMANDING
BEFORE: DYCHE, SCHRODER, AND VANMETER, JUDGES.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant's complaint against numerous defendants alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and malicious prosecution. The trial court properly ruled that the claims arising out of a 1999 incident were barred by the one-year statute of limitation in KRS 413.140(1)(a). The court also properly dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims based on a 2002 incident which resulted in appellant's conviction for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, where appellant's criminal conviction had not been overturned, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. However, because appellant made sufficient allegations of fraud, corruption and perjury, we adjudge that dismissal of the claims of malicious prosecution relative to the 2002 incident and resulting conviction was premature and the claims must be allowed to proceed. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Appellant, Hildreth Young, filed the action herein pro se on September 2, 2003. The complaint, which was inartfully drafted, essentially attempted to state claims against numerous defendants for malicious prosecution and for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for actions arising out of two separate incidents.
The first incident occurred in 1999. Young alleges that certain Tompkinsville police officers, acting under color of state law, beat him severely in the course of an arrest.
The second incident was in December of 2002. Four Tompkinsville workers were allegedly sent by the then Tompkinsville mayor to harass Young at Young's son's home. According to the complaint, the four men had weapons, and a physical altercation between Young and his son and the four men ensued. One of the men then falsely claimed that Young possessed a gun during this altercation. Young maintains that Eddie Murphy, a Tompkinsville police officer who responded to the scene, then confiscated a gun belonging to Young's daughter-in-law which had been locked up in a shed behind the property. As a result, Young was charged with and convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Apparently, Young is currently in prison on this conviction. Young alleges that all of the above was part of a politically-motivated conspiracy to get him convicted and imprisoned for a crime he did not commit.
On December 30, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing Young's complaint. The court adjudged that the claims based on the 1999 beating incident were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. As to the claims relating to his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the court adjudged that he could not re-litigate his guilt on the underlying charge and the allegations failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This pro se appeal by Young followed.
It has been held that in Kentucky the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions in KRS 413.140(1)(a) applies to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Collard v. Kentucky Board of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179 (6th Cir. 1990). Hence, the lower court properly adjudged that all of the claims arising out of the 1999 beating incident were barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
We next turn to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims based on the alleged conspiracy to wrongly convict Young of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The United States Supreme Court has held that: in order to recover damages for all
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|