Connie Reguli v. Lori Russ, 109 F.4th 874

Connie Reguli, a Tennessee attorney and civil rights advocate, became the subject of a police investigation after representing a client in a contested child custody matter involving the Department of Children’s Services (DCS).
In December 2018, Detective Lori Russ obtained a warrant to search Reguli’s private Facebook records, allegedly motivated by Reguli’s public criticism of law enforcement and DCS.
Reguli first learned of the Facebook search in January 2020 while preparing for her criminal trial, but only discovered Russ's retaliatory motive during sentencing in June 2022.
Reguli’s criminal conviction, related to custodial interference, was overturned on appeal; the Facebook evidence played no role in her criminal trial.
In November 2022, Reguli sued Russ and Brentwood officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation, but the district court dismissed the claim as barred by Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations.
The issue on appeal was whether the limitations period should start when Reguli learned of the search (the injury) or when she learned of the retaliatory motive (the cause).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accrual date of § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim	Accrual should start when Russ’s retaliatory motive revealed (June 2022).	Accrual starts when Reguli learned of Facebook search (Jan 2020).	Limitations period started when Reguli learned of search, not motive.
Necessity of knowing defendant’s motive to trigger limitations	Reguli needed to know the search was retaliatory before bringing claim.	Reguli only needed to know of search and that Russ did it.	Plaintiff did not need knowledge of motive, only of the injury and its cause.
Role of “chilling effect” in claim accrual	Reguli argued claim incomplete until she suffered “chilling effect” upon learning motive.	Adverse action and actual injury suffice; chill not a separate accrual element.	Claim accrues at time of adverse act if it would chill ordinary speaker, regardless of plaintiff’s subjective chill.
Applicability of discovery rule vs. occurrence rule	Discovery rule should apply, starting period at motive discovery.	Occurrence or discovery of injury/cause, not motive, triggers period.	Assumed discovery rule applies, but period began at discovery of injury/cause.

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (statute of limitations on § 1983 claims typically runs from the time of the injury)
McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (accrual of claim is when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230 (federal law governs accrual; occurrence rule presumptively applies unless specific circumstance justifies discovery rule)
Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (limitations period generally starts when injury is discovered, not when all claim elements are known)
Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (retaliation claims accrue when the retaliatory action occurs)
Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6 (accrual in employment discrimination based on adverse action regardless of later discovery of motive)
Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (First Amendment protects against retaliatory actions irrespective of actual chilling effect on plaintiff)