## Facts

- Tom U.U. Okure was arrested for disorderly conduct by SUNY police officers Javan Owens and Daniel G. Lessard.
- Okure alleged the officers beat him during the arrest, causing physical injuries (including broken teeth and a sprained finger) and mental distress.
- Twenty-two months after the incident, Okure sued the officers in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages based on alleged constitutional violations.
- New York law provided a one-year limitations period for certain intentional torts (including assault, battery, and false imprisonment) and a three-year residual limitations period for personal-injury actions not otherwise specified.
- The officers argued the one-year period applied and barred the suit; Okure argued the three-year residual personal-injury period applied.

## Issues

1. When a state has multiple statutes of limitations for personal-injury actions, which limitations period should federal courts borrow for § 1983 actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1988?
2. Specifically, should courts apply the state’s general/residual personal-injury period rather than a shorter limitations period for enumerated intentional torts?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Okure.
- The Court held that when state law provides multiple personal-injury limitations periods, § 1983 actions use the state’s general or residual personal-injury statute of limitations.
- In New York, the applicable period for § 1983 actions is the three-year residual personal-injury limitations period, not the one-year intentional-tort period.
- Because Okure filed suit within twenty-two months, the action was timely.

## Legal Principles

- For limitations purposes, § 1983 claims are treated as personal-injury actions, and federal courts borrow an appropriate state limitations period via 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- Where a state has more than one personal-injury limitations period, the governing period for all § 1983 claims is the state’s general or residual personal-injury statute of limitations.
- Courts should not select limitations periods by matching particular § 1983 allegations to specific state intentional torts, because § 1983 covers a wide range of constitutional injuries and a tort-by-tort approach creates unpredictability and nonuniform results.

## Conclusion

The Court required a single, easily identifiable limitations rule for § 1983 claims in states with multiple personal-injury statutes: the general or residual personal-injury limitations period applies, making Okure’s New York suit timely under the three-year period.


Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989)