Lexplug logoLexplug

Wilson v. Garcia

Supreme Court of the United States
471 U.S. 261, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 1, 85 L. Ed. 2d 254 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

All claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are to be characterized as personal injury actions for the purpose of selecting the most appropriate state statute of limitations. Federal law governs this characterization, and courts must apply the single, most appropriate state statute of limitations to all § 1983 claims within that state.


Facts:

  • On April 27, 1979, New Mexico State Police Officer Wilson arrested Garcia.
  • During the course of the arrest, Garcia alleged that Wilson unlawfully arrested him, 'brutally and viciously' beat him, and sprayed his face with tear gas.
  • Garcia further alleged that Wilson's superior, Chief Vigil, had notice of Officer Wilson’s alleged violent propensities from other incidents.
  • Garcia claimed Vigil failed to reprimand Wilson and that Vigil's training and supervision of Wilson were deficient.

Procedural Posture:

  • Garcia filed a § 1983 action against Wilson and Vigil in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico two years and nine months after the alleged incident.
  • The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.
  • The District Court denied the motion, holding that § 1983 actions are best characterized as statutory claims and applied New Mexico's four-year residual statute of limitations.
  • The District Court certified an interlocutory appeal of its order.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion to dismiss.
  • The Court of Appeals held that all § 1983 claims should be uniformly characterized as actions for injury to personal rights, making New Mexico's three-year personal injury statute of limitations the appropriate choice.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflict and confusion among the federal courts on this issue.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does federal law require courts, when borrowing a state statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, to apply the single most appropriate state statute for all § 1983 claims rather than choosing a statute based on the varying facts of each case?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

Yes. Federal law requires courts to select, in each State, the one most appropriate statute of limitations for all § 1983 claims. The Court held that the characterization of a § 1983 claim for statute of limitations purposes is a question of federal law, and the most appropriate characterization is that of a tort action for personal injury. The Court reasoned that a case-by-case approach inevitably breeds uncertainty, confusion, and time-consuming litigation that is contrary to the purposes of § 1983. A simple, uniform characterization promotes the federal interests in uniformity and certainty. Historically, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 was enacted to remedy personal injuries such as violence and the deprivation of liberty, making the analogy to modern personal injury torts compelling and consistent with Congressional intent.


Dissenting - Justice O’Connor

No. The Court should not have abandoned the long-standing rule that courts must identify and apply the statute of limitations of the state claim most closely analogous to the particular § 1983 claim at issue. This traditional approach properly defers to the State's legislative judgment in balancing the policies of repose and enforcement for different types of claims. The majority's 'one-size-fits-all' approach is a judicial invention that ignores congressional silence on the matter and creates new asymmetries, where the federal claim and a parallel state claim arising from the same facts will now be governed by different limitation periods. This half-measure of uniformity is a poor substitute for the careful, fact-specific analysis that precedent required.



Analysis:

This decision resolved a significant circuit split and dramatically simplified statute of limitations analysis for § 1983 litigation. By mandating a uniform characterization of all § 1983 claims as personal injury actions, the Court created a clear, predictable, and easily applied rule, reducing collateral litigation over which statute of limitations to apply. This approach prioritizes uniformity and certainty over a more nuanced, fact-specific analysis that respects individual state legislative judgments on timeliness for different types of wrongs. The ruling solidified the view that § 1983's core purpose is to vindicate invasions of personal rights against state actors.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Wilson v. Garcia (1985)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"