Courtney Bird v. State of Hawaii
935 F.3d 738
9th Cir.2019Background
- In 2007 Bird’s 7-week-old infant died; DHS placed Bird and her then-husband on Hawai‘i’s Central Child Abuse Registry (CCAR). NCIS later cleared Bird and her husband confessed, but DHS never removed Bird or notified her of the listing.
- Bird learned of the CCAR listing in June 2012 during adoption background checks and requested review; DHS delayed/limited the hearing process.
- Bird’s counsel threatened suit in May 2013 if DHS did not remove her; Bird filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in July 2015.
- District court held Bird’s § 1983 due-process claim time-barred under Hawai‘i’s 2-year statute of limitations; appeal followed.
- The Ninth Circuit applied the federal accrual/discovery rule, rejected Bird’s arguments invoking a perpetual accrual rule for facial challenges and the continuing-violation doctrine, and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did Bird’s § 1983 due-process claim accrue? | Accrual should not run (or runs only when statute repealed) because she challenges an ongoing statutory/regulatory scheme and seeks injunctive relief. | Accrual follows the normal discovery rule: claim accrues when plaintiff knew or had reason to know of injury (Bird knew by May 2013). | Accrual governed by discovery rule; claim accrued no later than May 2013, so suit filed July 2015 was time-barred. |
| Does a facial challenge to an ongoing statute/regulatory scheme delay accrual until repeal? | A facial challenge to an unconstitutional statute does not accrue while the statute remains in force; plaintiffs can sue while statute remains enforced. | Facial challenges are not exempt from the discovery rule; the traditional justifications for limitations (protecting defendants, preserving evidence) apply to due-process claims. | Rejected: no special indefinite tolling for due-process facial challenges; normal accrual applies. |
| Does the continuing-violation doctrine save Bird’s claim? | The CCAR’s ongoing effects are a continuing deprivation of liberty, so the systematic continuing violation extends limitations. | Bird alleges an individualized, discrete injury (placement on CCAR in 2007); post-Morgan II, the serial-acts branch is effectively abrogated and systematic branch does not cover individualized claims. | Rejected: Bird’s claim is individualized (discrete placement), so continuing-violation doctrine inapplicable; discovery rule controls. |
| Was leave to amend required because claim might be salvageable? | Bird sought amendment to avoid statute-of-limitations bar. | District court found amendment would not save the complaint because accrual facts were established. | Affirmed: dismissal proper and amendment correctly denied as futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.) (accrual of § 1983 claims governed by federal discovery rule)
- TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987 (9th Cir.) (§ 1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts start new accrual clock; limits serial-acts continuing-violation doctrine)
- Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.) (stigma-plus and due-process concerns over child-abuse registries; need for some hearing)
- Virginia Hosp. Ass’n v. Baliles, 868 F.2d 653 (4th Cir.) (facial challenges accrue when statute is applied/enforced; discussed but limited in scope)
- Kuhnle Bros., Inc. v. Cty. of Geauga, 103 F.3d 516 (6th Cir.) (continuing effect of resolution considered a continuing violation in context of fundamental travel right)
- Tearpock-Martini v. Borough of Shickshinny, 756 F.3d 232 (3d Cir.) (examined whether certain First Amendment/Establishment Clause claims warrant departure from normal accrual rules)