« Ind. Courts - Audience watching the first Supreme Court interview this mornng | Main | Ind. Courts - Report on the second 3 interviews of Supreme Court semi-finalists »

Friday, July 30, 2010

Ind. Decisions - Two today from 7th Circuit re Indiana

In Parish v. City of Elkhart (ND Ind., Lozano), a 15-page opinion, Judge Flaum writes:

In this case, we are confronted with the question of when claims of police misconduct resulting in false arrest, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), accrue for the purpose of the general two-year statute of limitation in Indiana. After serving eight years of a thirtyyear prison sentence for attempted murder, plaintiffappellant, Christopher Parish, was released from prison and the charges were dropped. After his release, Parish filed a complaint against the City of Elkhart and several officers who worked the case. Parish brought two claims under § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights and three claims for violations of his rights under state law. The district court dismissed all of Parish’s state law claims on the ground that they were barred by Indiana’s statute of limitations. Inherent in that decision was the ruling that the claims accrued at the time of arrest and at the time Parish was held over for trial rather than at the time Parish was exonerated. Parish appeals. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the false arrest and false imprisonment claims. We reverse the district court’s dismissal of Parish’s claim for IIED.
From USA v. Anthony Vaughn (SD Ind., McKinney), a 6-page per curiam opinion:
PER CURIAM. While incarcerated at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, Anthony Vaughn repeatedly stabbed a prison guard with an eight-inch shank. He pleaded guilty to committing aggravated assault on a federal officer, see 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), (b), and the district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment, 45 months above the top of the guidelines range. Vaughn’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 30, 2010 11:37 AM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions