PURVIS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES
1:15-cv-00563
| S.D. Ind. | May 17, 2017Background
- Purvis alleges sexual abuse by counselor Darrell Hughes from 1995 (age 16) through the late 1990s; Hughes worked for a provider to whom DCS referred Purvis.
- Purvis reported inappropriate sexual conduct to Hughes’s supervisor, Ruth Phelps, while still a minor; Phelps allegedly responded dismissively and did not stop Hughes.
- Purvis moved to Indianapolis as an adult; he reported abuse again but claims it continued only once more after the move.
- Purvis says he repressed memories and only recalled the abuse after learning of Hughes’s arrest on May 30, 2014; he sued in state court in December 2014, later removed to federal court.
- Federal claim asserted under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (Child Abuse Victims’ Rights Act); state-law claims for assault, sexual assault, IIED, and NIED also asserted.
- Defendants (Indiana DCS and Phelps) moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations/discovery-rule grounds, failure to prove an interstate-commerce element for § 2255, and failure to comply with Indiana Tort Claims Act notice requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (statute of limitations) | Repressed memory; discovery occurred in May 2014 when Hughes was arrested, so suit filed within ~6 months is timely | § 2255 has a 10‑year limit that ran from last juvenile assault (latest possible 1999); Purvis knew or should have known earlier | Court held claim time‑barred: Purvis knew of the abuse while a minor/adult and discovery rule does not save the suit |
| Application of discovery rule to repressed memories | Repression delayed accrual until 2014 when memory returned | Discovery rule doesn't delay accrual where plaintiff knew of the wrong or injury at the time of abuse | Court followed precedent rejecting repressed‑memory tolling; discovery rule inapplicable here |
| Interstate commerce element for § 2255 predicate offenses (e.g., §§ 2251/2252/2252A) | Purvis cannot presently prove interstate movement of photos or equipment but argued the element might be satisfied | No evidence that photographs or equipment traveled or affected interstate commerce; all events in Indiana | Court held Purvis failed to establish interstate commerce element; summary judgment for defendants on § 2255 claim |
| State‑law claims and ITCA notice requirement | Purvis offered no evidence contesting lack of notice | ITCA requires pre‑suit notice to sue state/state employees; state records show no notice filed | Court granted summary judgment on state claims for failure to comply with ITCA notice requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. Clash, 796 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2015) (discussing discovery rule and repressed‑memory claims under § 2255)
- Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1990) (discovery rule delays accrual until plaintiff knows or should know of claim)
- Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009) (statute begins when plaintiff discovers or should discover injury even if full extent unknown)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (limitations begin when injury is discovered or should be discovered)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and reasonable inference standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant must show genuine dispute of material fact)
- Ernstes v. Warner, 860 F. Supp. 1338 (S.D. Ind. 1994) (repressed‑memory argument rejected in sexual‑abuse case)