Is a one-year state statute of limitations period consistent with federal interests underlying Section 1983?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not itself provide a statute of limitations, federal courts have borrowed from state law to determine the timeliness of Section 1983 claims, so long as those state limitations periods are consistent with federal law and policy. In Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989), this Court expressly reserved the question of whether a one-year state limitations period would be inconsistent with the federal interests underlying Section 1983. This petition squarely presents that question. It also provides this Court the chance to revisit the fifty-state borrowing framework that allows states to frustrate plaintiffs’ access to federal courts to litigate their federal civil rights claims. Petitioner Jarius Brown was attacked by DeSoto Parish Sheriffs officers—suffering such severe injuries that he was hospitalized—and the two officers responsible have since pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges. The courts below, however, held his federal civil rights claim was time barred under Louisiana’s one-year residual limitations period. The questions presented are: 1. Is the application of a one-year residual personal injury statute of limitations to Section 1983 claims too short to be consistent with the federal interests underpinning the statute? 2. In looking for a “suitable” statute of limitations analogy for Section 1983 claims, does 28 U.S.C. § 1658's uniform federal limitations period more faithfully serve the federal interests underpinning Section 1983 than the current patchwork of fifty state laws?