Although the District Court relied primarily upon Curtis, we hold nevertheless that its judgment in this case must be affirmed. With regard to the allegation that appellee Safir represented appellant inadequately, no cause of action has been stated because
§ 1983 provides a remedy only against one acting under color of state law. Safir, a private attorney, does not fall within this category, despite the fact that he had been appointed by the court.
Pritt v. Johnson, 264 F.Supp. 167 (M.D.Pa.1967). With regard to the allegedly unlawful arrest and search by the police officers, we find that appellant's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defense which was asserted before the District Court in the answer of appellee Safir. Since the Civil Rights Act itself contains no limitation period, the courts will look to the most analogous statute of limitations of the state where the cause of action arose.
Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1964);
Minchella v. Estate of Skillman, 356 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1966). Michigan provides a two-year limitation period for actions charging false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or misconduct of sheriffs and their deputies. M.S.A. § 27A.5805, C.L.Mich. 1948, § 600.5805 (P.A.1961, No. 236). Appellant was tried for murder in 1959 and did not file his civil rights action until 1965. Although M.S.A. § 27A.5851, C.L.Mich.1948, § 600.5851 (P.A.1961, No. 236) suspends the running of the statute if a cause of action accrues while the prospective complainant is imprisoned, appellant's cause of action in this case accrued prior to his incarceration. With regard to appellant's allegation of conspiracy, it is to be observed that
§ 1985(3) applies by its terms only to conspiracies to deprive of equal protection or of privileges and immunities, and not of due process. However, even if a cause of action has been stated under
§ 1985(3), we hold that this claim is subject to the same limitation period as that which we have applied to the alleged
§ 1983 violations, and the claim is therefore barred.