Moore v. Burge

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing as untimely plaintiffs’ section 1983 actions alleging that defendant used torture tactics to extract statements from them that were used in their criminal trials, where defendant’s conduct occurred well before applicable 2-year limitations period for filing section 1983 actions. Moreover, plaintiffs could not use continuing violation doctrine to render instant complaints timely since each of defendant’s alleged torture episodes constituted concrete act that triggered separate limitations period. Ct. further rejected plaintiff’s contention that equitable tolling applied since plaintiffs were aware at time of alleged torture that they had been injured and by whom. Ct. also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that there lawsuits were timely since suing defendant at earlier time would have been futile, since plaintiffs cannot decide for themselves that any lawsuit would have been futile and thereby give themselves extra years to file their lawsuits.