416 F. App'x 704
10th Cir.2011Background
- Mercer-Smiths, physicians at Los Alamos National Laboratory, sue CYFD, its employees, and Dr. Reich over custody disputes and alleged abuse linked to investigations from 2001–2008.
- Alison, Julia, and Rachel are the Mercer-Smiths’ daughters; Julia and Rachel reported alleged abuse in early 2000s leading to CYFD involvement.
- CYFD investigated 1990 and 1992 allegations raised by Janet’s mother; investigations were “unsubstantiated” and “unconfirmed.”
- In 2001 Rachel, hospitalized for depression, was placed with a nanny; Reich discussed alleged abuse with the children and family; Julia and Rachel later recalled possible abuse.
- CYFD’s 2003–2004 placement decisions and the 2004 contempt motion raised questions about foster arrangements and compliance with court orders; state court later found CYFD violated orders in 2008.
- In 2009 the Mercer-Smiths filed suit in district court asserting § 1983, conspiracy, continuing violations, and state-law claims; the district court dismissed or granted summary judgment on key counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| accrual and tolling for § 1983 claim | Mercer-Smiths assert accrual later than 2008 due to ongoing concealment | Defendants argue accrual occurred by 2004 and tolling not applicable | Accrual occurred by 2004; tolling not applied; statute barred by 2009 |
| continuing violation doctrine applicability | Plaintiff argues continuing violations extend filing time | Doctrine does not apply to § 1983 claims | Continuing violations not applicable to § 1983 claims; time-bar remains |
| state-law claims against individual defendants | State claims timely and should proceed | Claims time-barred by same limitations as § 1983 | State-law claims dismissed as time-barred |
| leave to amend | Request for amendment should be allowed | Request denied for failure to follow local rules and futility | Denial of leave to amend affirmed; amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Mondragon v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2008) (provides accrual rule for § 1983 actions)
- Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 1998) (accrual when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
- O’Connor v. St. John’s College, 290 Fed. App’x 137 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished; accrual considerations under state law)
- Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 1994) (continuing violations not extending § 1983 claims)
- Thomas v. Denny’s, Inc., 111 F.3d 1506 (10th Cir. 1997) (continuing violations applicability)
- Tomlinson v. George, 116 P.3d 105 (N.M. 2005) (fraudulent concealment tolling rules under New Mexico law)
- GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381 (10th Cir. 1997) (use of central document in motion to dismiss when referenced in complaint)
- DeHaan v. United States, 3 F. App’x 729 (10th Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements for amendment requests)
- Garman v. Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 630 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to amend; futility analysis)