Millay v. State of Maine Department of
762 F.3d 152
1st Cir.2014Background
- John M. Millay, a blind Maine resident, sought state-funded transportation subsidies under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act; the Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired denied reimbursement.
- Millay administratively appealed; an administrative hearing officer upheld the Division’s decision on May 6, 2011.
- Six months later Millay filed suit in federal court asserting state-law claims, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act claims; the magistrate and district court suggested and then permitted amendment to assert a judicial-review claim under 29 U.S.C. § 722(c)(5)(J).
- The Division argued amendment was futile because Maine’s 30-day statute for judicial review (Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 11002(3)) barred the claim; the district court instead applied the federal catch-all limitations period, 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a), and allowed the amendment.
- On the merits the district court found Millay entitled to relief and entered judgment; the Division appealed solely contesting the limitations-period ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which limitations period governs judicial-review actions under 29 U.S.C. § 722(c)(5)(J)? | § 1658(a) applies because the 1998 amendment created the federal right to bring judicial-review actions and thus is a post-1990 enactment that "made possible" the claim. | Maine’s 30-day state judicial-review statute applies; § 1658(a) should not govern a procedural creation of judicial review, and states retained power to set limitations for review. | § 1658(a) governs: the 1998 amendment "made possible" Millay’s federal cause of action, so the four-year federal catch-all limitations period applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (establishes test whether a post-1990 enactment "made possible" the claim for § 1658 applicability)
- N. Star Steel Co. v. Thomas, 515 U.S. 29 (discusses historical practice of borrowing state statutes of limitations)
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (dictum on § 1658 applying when § 1983 claim is available for post-1990 enactments)
- Baldwin v. City of Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828 (supports applying § 1658 where amendment created a new remedy)
- Middleton v. City of Chicago, 578 F.3d 655 (same)
- Mallett v. Wis. Div. of Voc. Rehab., 130 F.3d 1245 (describes pre-1998 limits on § 1983 enforcement of Title I)
- United States v. Charles George Trucking Co., 823 F.2d 685 (1st Cir.) (court must follow clear statutory text rather than rewrite statute)