Caballero v. Wyandotte County Sheriff's
789 F. App’x 684
| 10th Cir. | 2019Background
- In February 2015 Caballero injured his right ring finger; it became infected and was mostly amputated on March 5, 2015.
- Caballero sued Wyandotte County in Kansas state court on December 21, 2016; the state action was dismissed in August 2017 for failure to give pre-suit notice under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12-105b; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed on August 31, 2018.
- Caballero filed a pro se § 1983 suit in federal court on September 4, 2018 asserting claims based on the 2015 care.
- The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) and dismissed it as time-barred under Kansas’s two-year personal-injury statute.
- Caballero argued equitable tolling (including tolling by the pendency of the state suit), and alternatively that a five-year contract limitation applied; the district court rejected these arguments and dismissed.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Caballero’s § 1983 claims untimely and that his tolling arguments failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Caballero’s § 1983 claims are time-barred | Claims accrued March 5, 2015 but tolling applies so federal filing (Sept 4, 2018) is timely | Two-year limitations under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(4) controls and bars the suit | Held: Claims untimely under Kansas two-year rule |
| Whether pendency of state-court case tolled the limitations period | State court action tolls limitations while it remained pending | Federal and Kansas law reject tolling merely because state litigation encompassed similar issues | Held: No tolling for pendency; Wallace and Kansas precedent bar that theory |
| Whether pro se status/ignorance of law qualifies as "extraordinary circumstance" for equitable tolling | Pro se status and misunderstanding justify equitable tolling | Ignorance of law or pro se status does not constitute extraordinary circumstances | Held: No equitable tolling; ignorance of law is insufficient |
| Whether a five-year contract statute applies instead of two-year personal-injury period | Five-year breach-of-contract statute governs limitations | Complaint alleges no contract; § 1983 uses two-year personal-injury period | Held: Five-year statute inapplicable; two-year period governs § 1983 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Mondragón v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2008) (federal law governs accrual; state law supplies limitations period)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (equitable tolling requires diligence plus extraordinary circumstances)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (pendency of state litigation does not equitably toll § 1983 accrual)
- Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000) (ignorance of the law by a pro se litigant generally does not warrant equitable tolling)
- Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff must plead facts supporting tolling when complaint dates show claim is time-barred)
- Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 1984) (two-year Kansas personal-injury period governs § 1983 actions in Kansas)
- Braxton v. Zavaras, 614 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2010) (review of denial of equitable tolling is for abuse of discretion)