Opinion ID: 2709198
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State‐Law False Arrest

Text: Indiana’s two‐year statute of limitations also bars Se‐ rino’s state false arrest claim. In reviewing a state tort claim, we apply Indiana law regarding the applicable limitations period and when the claim accrues. City of Elkhart, 614 F.3d at 679. Conveniently, Indiana has embraced the Wallace rule for false arrest claims. The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the statute begins to run when the alleged false impris‐ onment ends—i.e., the time of arraignment. See Johnson v. Blackwell, 885 N.E.2d 25, 31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008);2 City of Elkhart, 614 F.3d at 682 (explaining the same). Again, Serino filed his complaint well over two years after his arraign‐ ment. His false arrest claim is untimely. Serino tries to avoid this result by appealing to the con‐ tinuing wrong doctrine. Indiana courts will apply the doc‐ trine “where an entire course of conduct combines to pro‐ duce an injury”—in other words, when the defendant carries out a continuing wrongful act. Johnson, 885 N.E.2d at 31. But, as discussed above, Hensley’s “entire course of conduct” giving rise to Serino’s false arrest claim necessarily conclud‐ 2 When a state supreme court has not ruled on an issue of state law, we look to decisions of the state appellate court “unless there are persuasive indications that the state supreme court would decide the issue different‐ ly.” Much v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 266 F.3d 637, 643 (7th Cir. 2001). We have previously found Johnson v. Blackwell to be “persuasive authority on the approach the [Indiana] high court would take.” City of Elkhart, 614 F.3d at 680 n.3. 6 No. 13‐1058 ed once Serino was held pursuant to legal process. See id. at 30. Serino claims that he experienced emotional distress after that point, but this only goes toward the issue of his damag‐ es. Serino was aware of the facts surrounding his wrongful arrest as soon as he was arrested and charged; he did not need to wait until the charges were dismissed to establish the elements of his claim. See id. at 31 (“[T]he doctrine of con‐ tinuing wrong does not prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run when the plaintiff learns of facts that should lead to the discovery of his cause of action, even if his relationship with the tortfeasor continues beyond that point.”). As such, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of both the federal and state false arrest claims.