Earle v. District of Columbia
404 U.S. App. D.C. 1
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Earle, a Jamaican national, alleged the District violated VCCR Article 36(1)(b) rights actionable under §1983.
- Detention/arrest occurred June 13, 1985; he was convicted in 1987 and sentenced to 20 years to life.
- He escaped custody Sept. 19, 1988, and was recaptured Mar. 7, 1989; no consular notification occurred during this time.
- Earle learned of consular rights in 2004 and sued in 2006; the District court granted summary judgment; the D.C. Circuit reviewed tolling, accrual, and potential continuing-violation theories.
- The District’s notification duties under Article 36 shifted with custody; Lorton transfer and custody dynamics were discussed to determine ongoing obligations, but no new timely violations were alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 36 creates individually enforceable rights under §1983 | Earle argues Article 36(1)(b) creates rights enforceable under §1983 | District challenges availability of such enforceable rights | Assuming, but not deciding, rights exist under §1983 |
| When the §1983 claim accrues for Article 36 violations | Accrual delayed if duty to inform was continuing | Accrual occurs at arrest or discrete violation points | Accrual occurred by Sep. 19, 1988, as the last violative act; 2006 suit untimely |
| Whether continuing violation tolling applies to this §1983 claim | Continuing duty to inform tolls limitations | No continuing-violation tolling for discrete notification duties | Continuing-violation tolling not applicable; panel declines broad tolling |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolling applies under DC law | District's nondisclosure tolled limitations | Fraudulent concealment not established under DC law here | Fraudulent concealment tolling not established; suit untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 549 U.S. 331 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (recognizes VCCR purpose and scope; aid for treaty-interpretation context)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (whether Article 36 creates specific, enforceable rights under §1983)
- Keohane v. United States, 669 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (discusses continuing violation concept in context of accrual)
- Cannon v. District of Columbia, 569 A.2d 595 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (fraudulent concealment tolling in Miranda-warning context; no tolling)
- Singletary v. District of Columbia, 351 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (applies residual DC statute of limitations for §1983)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (establishes accrual rule for §1983 claims; timing of accrual)
- AKM LLC dba Volks Constructors v. Sec’y of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (discusses continuing obligation and tolling; concurrence cited)
- Postow v. OBA Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 627 F.2d 1370 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (example of continuing obligation concept in statute-based tolling)