The court believes that defendants have misconstrued the Supreme Court's intent in
Wilson. In selecting a general characterization for all
§ 1983 claims, the Supreme Court was concerned with “uniformity, certainty, and minimization of unnecessary litigation”. The Court intended to ensure that the one most appropriate statute of limitations in each state would be applied to all
§ 1983 claims and that the borrowed limitations period would “not discriminate against the federal civil rights remedy”.
Wilson, 105 S.Ct. at 1947. In choosing a uniform characterization the Supreme Court recognized that “(a)lmost every
§ 1983 claim can be favorably analogized to more than one of the ancient common-law forms of action, each of which may be governed by a different statute of limitations.”
Id. at 1945. The Court also noted, “When
§ 1983 was enacted, it is unlikely that Congress actually foresaw the wide diversity of claims that the new remedy would ultimately embrace.”
Id. at 1946. For example, the plaintiff's
§ 1983 claim in
Wilson, as in the present action, could be characterized as a state tort claim for false arrest, assault and battery, or personal injury. It could also be viewed generally as a claim arising from a statute or from the state's specific statute governing state agents' torts. The Supreme Court further emphasized the broad scope of
§ 1983 claims by stating:
Id. See also Id. at 1946 n. 31 (quoting Justice Blackmun's discussion of other causes of action that have been alleged under
§ 1983).