Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 29, 1997). Accordingly, all claims against the Waterbury Police Department are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). F. Defendants Slavin and the City of Waterbury Defendant Slavin is a Waterbury police officer against whom two claims are asserted. First, Nicholson alleges that defendant Slavin used excessive force and conducted an illegal search of his personal effects when he arrested Nicholson in February 1999. The court has construed the brief reference to the City of Waterbury as relating to this claim. Second, he alleges that defendant Slavin made a false report charging him with robbery and provided that false information to the prosecutor. The limitations period for filing a section 1983 action is three years. See Lounsbury v. Jeffries, 25 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Nicholson alleges that defendant Slavin used 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims (B) holding that in connecticut the general threeyear personal injury statute of limitations period set forth in connecticut general statutes  52577 is the appropriate limitations period for civil rights actions asserted under 42 usc  1983 (C) holding that if state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions the general or residual statute for personal injury actions should be used for 1983 actions (D) holding that civil rights claims at least those arising under 42 usc  1983 were subject to the applicable states personal injury statute of limitations (E) holding that connecticuts threeyear limitations period for tort suits set forth in conn genstat  52577 is the appropriate limitations period for civil rights actions under  1983
Output (English): holding that civil rights claims at least those arising under 42 usc  1983 were subject to the applicable states personal injury statute of limitations