James Wright v. John Doe, et al, No. 10-2503 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's section 1983 action as it was filed outside the applicable period of limitations.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2503 ___________ James Brian Wright, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. John Doe, Police Officer #2, Fort Smith * Police Department; John Doe, Police * [UNPUBLISHED] Officer #1, Fort Smith Police * Department; Ron Lockhart, Corporal, * Fort Smith Police Department; Mark * Hallum, Major, Fort Smith Police * Department; Unknown Deputies of the * Sebastian County Sheriff s Department; * Frank Atkinson, Sheriff, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: November 4, 2010 Filed: November 8, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate James Brian Wright appeals the district court s1 dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We review the dismissal de novo. See Botten v. Shorma, 440 F.3d 979, 980 (8th Cir. 2006). We agree that Wright s action was filed outside the applicable period of limitations. See Ark. Code. Ann. § 16-56-116 (person under age of 21 when action accrues may bring action within 3 years after attaining full age); Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388, 393 (2007) (accrual date of § 1983 cause of action is question of federal law and occurs when plaintiff has complete and present cause of action; Heck rule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there is extant conviction, rather than anticipated future conviction); Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (Arkansas s 3 year general personal-injury statute of limitations governs § 1983 claims brought in Arkansas); Johnson v. Johnson Cnty. Comm n Bd., 925 F.2d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir. 1991) (claims arising out of police action toward criminal suspect, such as arrest and interrogation, are presumed to have accrued when actions actually occurred). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wright s motion for reconsideration. See Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
