Michael L. McGroarty v. Richard L. Swearingen
977 F.3d 1302
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- McGroarty pled guilty to sexual offenses in 2001–2002 and was sentenced to ten years' probation; he moved from Florida to California in 2004 and later to North Carolina in 2012.
- He completed probation in Florida in January 2012 but received a March 2012 FDLE notification asserting continuing Florida registration obligations; FDLE retained and displayed his photograph and identifying information on its public sex-offender registry (posted since about 2004).
- McGroarty sued FDLE Commissioner Swearingen in 2018 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of substantive due process (including a right to travel/liberty interest) based on continued online publication of his information.
- Swearingen moved to dismiss arguing the claims were time-barred and that any ongoing harms were merely continuing consequences of a discrete act, not a continuing violation that would toll the limitations period.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as time-barred; McGroarty appealed, arguing (1) the continuing-violation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations because publication is ongoing, and (2) the Supreme Court’s decision in Nichols v. United States (2016) changed the accrual date or created a new claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continuing-violation doctrine tolls the § 1983 limitations period for ongoing publication of registry information | McGroarty: daily public posting is a continuous constitutional violation, so limitations tolls | Swearingen: publication was a discrete past act whose present consequences do not restart the clock | Court: No continuing violation; posting was a one-time act with continuing effects, so claims are time-barred |
| Whether Nichols v. United States (2016) delayed accrual or created a new cause of action | McGroarty: Nichols showed federal law doesn’t reach nonresidents, so his § 1983 claim didn’t accrue until Nichols | Swearingen: accrual depends on when plaintiff knew of injury and actor, not on later changes in law | Court: Accrual occurred when McGroarty knew of the injury (by March 2012); Nichols did not change accrual or create a new claim |
| Whether McGroarty waived the continuing-violation argument by not raising it below | McGroarty: argued below that obligations were continuing and cited state-case law; preserved the issue | Swearingen: contended the argument was waived | Court: Declined to find waiver; issue was raised and addressed below |
Key Cases Cited
- Center For Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes continuing harm from continuing violation for tolling)
- Lovett v. Ray, 327 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) (one-time act with ongoing consequences does not extend limitations)
- Nichols v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1113 (2016) (interpreted SORNA’s registration duties for nonresidents; federal-law holding did not alter state-law accrual here)
- Rozar v. Mullis, 85 F.3d 556 (11th Cir. 1996) (§ 1983 accrual: plaintiff must know of injury and who inflicted it)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (distinguishes ignorance of legal rights from ignorance of injury for accrual purposes)