XVIII. Statute of Limitations

• Library: Sword and Shield: A Practical Approach to Section 1983 Litigation (ABA) (2015 Ed.)

XVIII. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

A. Limitations Period

There is no federal statute of limitations for § 1983 claims. When there is a deficiency in federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) requires federal courts to borrow state law, so long as the state law is not inconsistent with the policies of § 1983. In Wilson v. Garcia,³⁹⁵ the Supreme Court held that a federal court should borrow the state's limitations period for personal injury actions, so long as the period is not inconsistent with the policies of § 1983. This means that the governing limitations period for federal court § 1983 actions may differ from state to state. "[W]here state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions, courts . . . should borrow the general or residual statute for personal injury actions."³⁹⁶ A state's unduly short limitations period (e.g., six months) is inconsistent with the policies of § 1983.³⁹⁷

B. Relation Back

Whether an amended complaint "relates back" to the filing of the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). Under Rule 15, an amended complaint asserting a claim against the originally named defendant(s) will relate back to the filing of the original complaint if the claim in the amended complaint arose out of the same conduct or transaction in the original complaint. If the amended complaint "changes" the defendant, the amended complaint will relate back to the filing of the original complaint if (1) the amended complaint arose out of the same conduct as the original complaint; (2) the newly named defendant, within the period for service of the summons and complaint, received notice of the institution of the action that will avoid prejudice in defending the action; and (3) the newly named defendant "knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party."³⁹⁸ Rule 15(c)(1)(A) provides that when, as in § 1983 actions, state law governs the limitation period, a state-law relations back doctrine that is more forgiving than the Rule 15(c)'s relation back doctrine will govern the relations back issue.³⁹⁹

The currently prevailing view in the federal courts holds that an amendment of a complaint substituting a John Doe defendant with the names of the actual officers does not relate back to the filing of the original com-plaint.⁴⁰⁰ The rationale of these decisions is that lack of knowledge about the names of alleged wrongdoer defendants is not a "mistake" within the meaning of Rule 15(c).⁴⁰¹

C. Accrual

Unlike the selection of the limitations period, which is determined by reference to state law, the accrual of a § 1983 claim is a question of federal law.⁴⁰² Section 1983 claims...