Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/428/1148/1791949/
Timestamp: 2019-10-24 05:19:15
Document Index: 477354602

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1983', '§ 95', '§ 3134', '§ 1981']

Person v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 428 F. Supp. 1148 (W.D. Okla. 1976) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Oklahoma › Western District of Oklahoma › 1976 › Person v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
Person v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 428 F. Supp. 1148 (W.D. Okla. 1976)
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - 428 F. Supp. 1148 (W.D. Okla. 1976)
428 F. Supp. 1148 (1976)
Jerry B. PERSON, Plaintiff,
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant.
*1149 Donald W. Davis, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff.
Ben Franklin and Harvey L. Harmon, Sr., Franklin, Harmon & Satterfield, Inc., Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.
This action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to secure plaintiff's right to equal protection under the laws. The plaintiff claims that he was denied an opportunity to apply for a job with the defendant railroad on May 2, 1973, because of his race. This action was filed on December 1, 1975.
There is no federal statute of limitations for a cause of action under § 1981. Therefore, the controlling period of time is arrived at by reference to the most appropriate statute of limitations contained in state law. Johnson v. REA, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S. Ct. 1716, 44 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1975) and O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 34 S. Ct. 596, 58 L. Ed. 980 (1914). The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held that the applicable Oklahoma Statute for actions under §§ 1983 and 1985 is the third portion of 12 O.S.1971, § 95 which provides in pertinent part:
The plaintiff argues that the defendant has not raised the statute of limitations in a timely or appropriate manner and therefore should not now be heard on this issue. The defendant first raised the statute of limitations in paragraph IX(4) of the *1150 answer. That is as timely an assertion of the defense as could be expected.
It is unnecessary to decide whether this would be a proper case for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and whether this defendant is a proper person or entity to be served with such a writ. This is so, because, the writ of mandamus has been abolished by Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mandatory relief may now be obtained by means of a mandatory or an affirmative injunction. Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 3134. Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that there shall be one form of action to be known as "civil action". Consequently, this action in this Court must be viewed as a "civil action" irrespective of the historical antecedents to the relief sought by the plaintiff. The above quoted statute of limitations is applicable to civil actions and the Court is constrained to apply the two year statute of limitations to the plaintiff's cause of action under § 1981.