Chidi N. Anunka v. City of Burnsville, No. 13-1614 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not err in determining that plaintiff's complaint, liberally construed, contained a Section 1983 claim and that this claim was untimely under the applicable Minnesota statute of limitations; the district court did not err in determining plaintiff had failed to plead sufficient facts to invoke tolling of the statute of limitations.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1614 ___________________________ Chidi N. Anunka, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. City of Burnsville, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: October 1, 2013 Filed: October 16, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Chidi Anunka appeals from the district court s1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his pro se complaint against the City of Burnsville. Upon careful de novo review, see Northstar Indus., Inc. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 576 F.3d 827, 831 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that Anunka s complaint, liberally construed, contained a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, and that this claim was untimely under the applicable Minnesota six-year statute of limitations, see Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387-88 (2007) (state statute of limitations for personal-injury torts applies in § 1983 actions; § 1983 action accrues when plaintiff has complete and present cause of action); Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 618 n.3 (8th Cir. 1995) (in Minnesota, § 1983 claims are governed by six-year limitations period under Minnesota s personal-injury statute); see also Strawn v. Mo. State Bd. Of Educ., 210 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 2000) (statute-of-limitations determination is question of law subject to de novo review). We further agree with the district court that Anunka failed to allege sufficient facts to support a basis for tolling the statute of limitations. See Drobnak v. Anderson Corp., 561 F.3d 778, 786 (8th Cir. 2009) (to establish fraudulent concealment, plaintiff must plead that there was affirmative act or statement which concealed potential cause of action, that statement was known to be false or made in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, and that concealment could not have been discovered by plaintiff s reasonable diligence); Goellner v. Butler, 836 F.2d 426, 431 (8th Cir. 1988) (absent fraud, ignorance of existence of cause of action does not toll statute of limitations). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
