Bedford v. Waldon
1:16-cv-01210
D.N.M.Jan 3, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Stanley Bedford, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 complaint on November 3, 2016 alleging sexual touching by Dr. Waldon on July 10, 2010 and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The alleged constitutional injury occurred on or about July 10, 2010; the complaint was filed more than six years later.
- New Mexico's three-year personal-injury statute of limitations (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-8) governs § 1983 claims arising in New Mexico.
- The Court noted on November 5, 2017 that the complaint appeared time-barred and issued an Order to Show Cause giving Bedford 30 days to explain why the case should not be dismissed.
- Bedford did not respond to the Order to Show Cause.
- The Court concluded the complaint is facially barred by the statute of limitations, dismissed it with prejudice, and imposed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bedford's § 1983 claim is time-barred | Bedford alleges constitutional injury from Dr. Waldon's touching on 7/10/2010 and seeks relief (implicitly contends claim is timely) | The claim accrued when Bedford knew of the injury (July 2010); the three-year limitations period expired well before filing | Dismissed: claim is time-barred because filed more than three years after accrual |
| Whether dismissal is proper on the face of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) / § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Bedford's factual allegations state a constitutional claim (pro se pleading) | The statute-of-limitations affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint, permitting dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the complaint is facially untimely |
| Whether the court must construe pro se pleadings liberally to avoid dismissal | Bedford relies on liberal construction of pro se pleadings to preserve claim | Court acknowledged liberal construction but noted pro se plaintiffs remain subject to governing legal standards and deadlines | Liberal construction does not save a facially time-barred claim |
| Whether to impose a PLRA strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) | Bedford sought in forma pauperis relief; no argument presented opposing strike | Court found the complaint fails to state a claim and thus qualifies as a dismissal under § 1915(g) criteria | Strike imposed under § 1915(g); warns consequence for accumulating three strikes |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Varnell v. Dora Consol. Sch. Dist., 756 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2014) (New Mexico three-year statute governs § 1983 claims and accrual when plaintiff knows of injury)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual occurs when plaintiff knows or should know of injury and its cause)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (affirmative defenses appearing on the face of the complaint may support dismissal)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (court may dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis claims)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (court may pierce pleadings and consider other materials when screening in forma pauperis complaints)
- Aguilera v. Kirkpatrick, 241 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 2001) (facially time-barred complaints may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6))