Franks v. Perry et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
MICHAEL JAMES FRANKS 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 2:24-CV-2115
SHERIFF DANIEL PERRY (Crawford County, Arkansas);
CHIEF OF POLICE JOSH WINFORD (Dyer, Arkansas);
DEPUTY ZACHARY KING (Crawford County Sheriff’s
Department); and JOHN DOE OFFICERS 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 7) of the
Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. Magistrate Judge Ford recommends dismissing Claim One of the Complaint,
which alleges the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due
to excessive force. The incident in question occurred on May 20, 2021, and the
Complaint was filed more than three years later. The Magistrate Judge explained in the
R&R that Claim One was subject to dismissal because it was filed after the three-year
statute of limitations had expired.
On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the R&R (Doc. 8), arguing
that the statute of limitations on Claim One should be five years rather than three years.
After a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection is without
merit. Claims under § 1983 are governed by the most appropriate or analogous state
statute of limitation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held
that a three-year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims for excessive force filed
in Arkansas. See Spradling v. Hastings, 912 F.3d 1114, 1119 (8th Cir. 2019); Ketchum
Case 2:24-cv-02115-TLB Document 9 Filed 10/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
v. City of West Memphis, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992); Morton v. City of Little Rock,
934 F.2d 180, 183 (8th Cir. 1991); Lyons v. Goodson, 787 F.2d 411, 412 (8th Cir.
1986). Therefore, the Objection is OVERRULED.
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R it is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Pursuant to
the 	provisions 	of 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915A, 	Claim 	One 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s allegations in Claim Two concerning wrongful confinement from
May 20, 2021, through September 8, 2021, will remain for service and further review,
and the case should remain referred to the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 29th day of October, 2024.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02115-TLB Document 9 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>