Filer v. Polston
886 F. Supp. 2d 790
S.D. Ohio2012Background
- Filer, pro se, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations tied to May 27, 2008 searches of her home and business in Xenia, Ohio.
- Warrants issued by Xenia Municipal Court; searches conducted on May 27, 2008; state court later suppressed the son’s evidence in a related case.
- Plaintiff alleges $10,000,000 in damages to her business and seeks proportional liability among named defendants.
- Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings arguing a two-year limitations period bars the claims; discovery rule tolling is proposed by Filer.
- Magistrate Judge recommends granting the motion; district court adopts, dismissing with prejudice as time-barred.
- Filer objects and later moves for reconsideration; court denies reconsideration and terminates case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the two-year statute of limitations bar the §1983 claims? | Filer argues discovery rule tolls accrual, making timely. | ||
| Defendants contend accrual occurred on May 27, 2008, not tolled. | Yes; claims barred as time-barred. | ||
| Does tolling occur due to the suppression ruling as the triggering event? | Suppression ruling tolled the limitations period. | Suppressing order does not toll; accrual occurred earlier. | No tolling; accrual occurred on the date of searches. |
| Is the claim viable without proving an official governmental policy or custom? | Plaintiff contends governmental custom is shown by conduct. | ||
| Plaintiff must show policy, but statute bar renders this moot. | moot given time-bar analysis; not necessary to reach policy question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberson v. Tennessee, 399 F.3d 792 (6th Cir.2005) (accrual when injury and knowledge occur)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (discovery rule governs accrual in §1983 cases)
- Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262 (6th Cir.1984) (standard for discovery rule in §1983 accrual)
- Spencer v. Conn., 560 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. Conn. 2008) (accrual when the act of search is complete)
- Triestman v. Probst, 897 F. Supp. 48 (N.D.N.Y.1995) (limitations accrual in §1983 property cases)
- Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380 (3d Cir.1994) (actual injury governs discovery rule)