32 F.4th 980
10th Cir.2022Background
- Herrera and Garcia bought a house in Española previously billed to seller Charlotte Miera, whose water account had an unpaid ~$1,760 balance.
- City initially opened a new account for Plaintiffs, but turned off service on or before Feb. 13, 2017 and told Plaintiffs service would not resume until Miera’s bill was paid.
- Plaintiffs repeatedly requested reinstatement from Feb. 2017 through Feb. 2020; City repeatedly refused for the same reason. Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a demand in Feb. 2020.
- New Mexico COVID public-health order prompted the City to restore service on Mar. 18, 2020. Plaintiffs sued on June 4, 2020 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process and equal protection) and the NMTCA.
- The district court dismissed as time-barred, holding claims accrued by Mar. 1, 2017 and rejecting continuing-violation tolling; Tenth Circuit affirmed accrual date, held continuing-violation doctrine is available for §1983 but inapplicable here, and held the repeated-violation doctrine preserves policy-based §1983 claims for damages occurring within the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the claims accrue? | Accrual continued with each denial through 2020; later denials restarted the clock. | Accrual occurred no later than Mar. 1, 2017 when Herrera learned City’s basis and said rights were violated. | Accrual occurred no later than Mar. 1, 2017; claims filed June 4, 2020 therefore time-barred absent tolling. |
| Is the continuing-violation doctrine available under §1983 and NMTCA? | Doctrine should apply to toll limitations because harms persisted over years. | Doctrine not applicable to these claims. | Continuing-violation doctrine is available under §1983 but does not apply here; it also does not save the NMTCA claim. |
| Continuing-violation vs. repeated-violation doctrines — which applies to Plaintiffs’ §1983 claims? | Plaintiffs: each denial may be part of an ongoing single wrong; alternatively each denial is a discrete violation restarting the limitations period. | City: initial termination was a discrete actionable event; subsequent denials were merely continuing effects. | Court: claims are not a single cumulative wrong (continuing-violation inapplicable), but the repeated-violation doctrine applies to policy-based claims—Plaintiffs may recover for discrete violations within the limitations period. |
| Dismissal of individual-capacity defendants at Rule 12(b)(6) stage | Plaintiffs argued individual denials were discrete and within limitations. | City moved to dismiss all defendants; individual defendants were unnamed/unserved. | Dismissal as to unnamed individual defendants vacated because statute-of-limitations is an affirmative defense subject to waiver and the individuals had not been served/raised the defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (distinguishes discrete discriminatory acts from cumulative acts that form a single continuing violation)
- Hamer v. City of Trinidad, 924 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. 2019) (repeated-violation doctrine permits recovery for ongoing municipal noncompliance occurring within limitations period)
- Bergman v. United States, 751 F.2d 314 (10th Cir. 1984) (final adverse decision starts the limitations clock; repeated requests do not restart it)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (§1983 accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury)
- McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (2019) (accrual analysis begins by identifying the specific constitutional right at issue)
- DePaola v. Clarke, 884 F.3d 481 (4th Cir. 2018) (characterizes the continuing-violation doctrine as a federal common-law principle)