Logan v. Wilkins
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13897
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Logan sued in 2009 alleging conspiracy among local government officials and a private actor to deprive him of his Delaware County mobile home park.
- Alleged wrongdoing began in 2005 with notices and actions by health and zoning officials leading to tenant departures and financial harm.
- In 2006 the Delaware Circuit Court ordered demolition of thirteen mobile homes; Logan did not appeal the order.
- Barber demolished fourteen homes (not thirteen) and engaged in alleged misconduct affecting the property; Logan alleged conspiracy among Wilkins, Dely-Stintson, Williams, and Barber.
- Foreclosure occurred on September 26, 2007; Logan lost ownership, raising issues about post-foreclosure conduct by Sheriff Sheridan and Deputy Robbins.
- In 2009 the district court dismissed pre-2007 claims as time-barred; Logan amended alleging concealed conspiracy and additional post-2007 claims, which were again dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-March 6, 2007 claims are time-barred | Logan argues fraudulent concealment tolling applies. | Defendants contend accrual occurred for each act and concealment was not shown. | Pre-2007 claims time-barred; no tolling shown. |
| Whether post-March 6, 2007 claims survive | Logan contends ongoing conspiracy allegations support relief. | Waiver because not challenged on appeal; insufficient evidence of conspiracy. | Post-2007 claims rejected; waiver and lack of conspiracy shown. |
| Whether Sheriff/Robbins/Taylor can be liable for conspiracy under §1983 | Logan asserts a conspiracy between state actors and private party. | No plausible agreement or joint action with state actors; Taylor’s alleged misconduct not tied to §1983 rights violation. | No §1983 conspiracy shown against Sheriff, Robbins, or Taylor. |
| Whether the case should be remanded to permit amendment | Additional facts could cure defects if remanded. | No new facts to cure deficiencies; remand unnecessary. | Court declined remand; amendment not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dexia Crédit Local v. Rogan, 629 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of statute of limitations determinations)
- Behavioral Institute of Indiana, LLC v. Hobart City of Common Council, 406 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2005) (limits of Indiana tolling for §1983 actions)
- City of E. Chi., v. E. Chi. Second Century, Inc., 908 N.E.2d 611 (Ind. 2009) (fraudulent concealment tolling as equitable exception)
- Williams v. Seniff, 342 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2003) (requirements for proving conspiracy under §1983)
- Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2003) (conspiracy and §1983 liability against state actors)
- Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2008) (notice pleading and dismissal standards for time-barred claims)
- Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Village of Lemont, 520 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2008) (statutes of limitations and timely claims in §1983 actions)
- Brosted v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 421 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2005) (remand/affirmation on alternative grounds)
- Frey v. EPA, 270 F.3d 1129 (7th Cir. 2001) (remand not required when defects incurable)
- Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2008) (fraudulent concealment must prevent inquiry)