the false or illegal imprisonment, see Hoffman v. County of Delaware, 41 F.Supp.2d 195, 216 (N.D.N.Y.1999) (“Under New York law, false arrest and false imprisonment claims accrue on the date of the release from confinement.”), aff'd 205 F.3d 1323 (2d Cir.2000); Adler v. Beverly Hills Hosp., 594 S.W.2d 153, 154 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1980) (“We hold that false imprisonment is a continuing tort and that the cause of action for the entire period of imprisonment accrues when the detention ends.”); Stafford v. Muster, 582 S.W.2d 670, 680 (Mo.1979) (stating that, for “false imprisonment in particular, the authorities overwhelmingly hold that a cause of action for false imprisonment accrues on the discharge from imprisonment”); Belflower v. Blackshere, 1955 O.K. 74, 281 P.2d 423, 425 (Okla.1955) (<HOLDING>). In Wallace v. Kato, Wallace filed suit under
holding in a false imprisonment action that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorneys fees unless the services were to secure his discharge from the illegal restraint holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest holding that a cause of action for illegal arrest and false imprisonment accrued at the time plaintiff was released from his alleged illegal restraint and not when the proceedings by which his arrest occurred terminated holding that a plaintiffs  1983 claim accrued on the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure