|
|
Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989)
Hardin v. Straub No. 87-7023 Argued March 22, 1989 Decided May 22, 1989 490 U.S. 536
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
In 1986, petitioner, who is incarcerated in a Michigan state prison, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison authorities had deprived him of his federal constitutional rights during 1980 and 1981. The Federal District Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint because it had been filed after the expiration of Michigan’s 3-year statutory limitations period for personal injury actions, which is applicable in federal civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and this Court’s decisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, refusing to apply a Michigan statute that suspends limitations periods for persons under a legal disability, including prisoners, until one year after the disability has been removed.
Held: A federal court applying a state statute of limitations to an inmate’s federal civil rights action should give effect to the State’s provision tolling the limitations period for prisoners. The Court of Appeals’ ruling to the contrary conflicts with Board of Regents, University of New York v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, which held that limitations periods in § 1983 suits are to be determined by reference to the appropriate state statute of limitations and the coordinate tolling rules, as long as the state law would not defeat the goals of the federal law at issue. The Michigan tolling statute is consistent with § 1983’s remedial purpose, since some inmates may be loathe to sue adversaries to whose daily supervision and control they remain subject, and even those who do file suit may not have a fair opportunity to establish the validity of their allegations while they are confined. Pp. 538-544.
836 F.2d 549, reversed and remanded.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989) in 490 U.S. 536 490 U.S. 537. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HFMRTQWULNR1JEX.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989), in 490 U.S. 536, page 490 U.S. 537. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HFMRTQWULNR1JEX.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989). cited in 1989, 490 U.S. 536, pp.490 U.S. 537. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HFMRTQWULNR1JEX.
|