Madero Pouncil v. James Tilton
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24039
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Pouncil, a California LWOP prisoner and Muslim, sues under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging RLUIPA and First Amendment burdens from a prison regulation prohibiting conjugal visits.
- He married his first wife in 1999 and was denied a conjugal visit in 2002 under California regulatory provisions that barred LWOP inmates from family visits.
- He remarried on July 14, 2007, and on August 1, 2008 was denied a conjugal visit with his second wife under the same or recodified regulation (§3177).
- Administrative appeals followed through informal, second-level, and director levels, exhausting remedies by December 9, 2008.
- District court initially held the statute of limitations ran from 2002 and that the 2008 denial was an effect of the 2002 denial, but ultimately certified an interlocutory appeal to determine accrual under competing authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When do Pouncil’s claims accrue for §1983/RLUIPA? | Morgan discrete act rule; 2008 denial starts new clock. | Ricks/Knox line; 2008 denial is merely the inevitable consequence of 2002 denial. | Discrete act; accrual begins in 2008. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. United States, 536 U.S. 101, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete act rule; each independently wrongful act starts a new limitations period)
- Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 260 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2001) (continuing effects are not actionable; accrual at initial denial in a system-wide suspension context)
- Ricks v. Delaware State College, 449 U.S. 250, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1981) (discrete act accrual tied to the denial decision; later effects do not restart accrual)
- Cherosky v. Henderson, 330 F.3d 1243, 330 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrete acts can start new accrual when denial of a subsequent request relies on the same policy)
- Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 539 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2008) (discrete acts doctrine applied to prison program denials; individualized decisions start new accrual)
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 550 U.S. 618 (U.S. 2007) (discrete acts vs. continuing effects; later discrete decisions define present violations)