461 F. App'x 661
10th Cir.2012Background
- Romero, a Colorado state prisoner, appeals a dismissal favoring the CDOC, alleging S-4 classification violated his rights.
- CDOC classified Romero as an S-4 sex offender in 2000 based on a 1993 home intrusion and alleged sexual contact with a minor.
- Romero contested the 2000 classification hearing, which proceeded with limited witness presentation; the panel found him an S-4 offender.
- In 2009, CDOC reimposed the S-4 classification during a later incarceration without a new hearing.
- Romero later filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging due process, self-incrimination, and Ex Post Facto claims, all time-barred per district court.
- The district court and Tenth Circuit held accrual occurred in 2000, and Romero filed suit in 2009, beyond the two-year limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did Romero’s §1983 claims accrue? | Romero argues accrual occurred in 2009. | CDOC argues accrual occurred in 2000. | Accrued in 2000; 2009 events did not create a new accrual period. |
| Does 2009 reimposition reset or extend the statute of limitations? | Reimposition created a new discrete injury. | No new injury; injuries traced to 2000. | No new accrual; 2009 reimposition relates to 2000 injuries. |
| Does knowledge of nature and extent affect accrual here? | Knowledge of injury’s extent should delay accrual. | Knowledge began when classification occurred. | Nature-and-extent doctrine does not alter accrual here. |
| Do First and Second Claims require analysis of 2000 due-process evidentiary standards? | Claims arise from 2000 hearing and its evidentiary standards. | Claims tied to 2000 decision; 2009 changes not new claims. | Claims tied to the 2000 hearing; time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Oklahoma, 382 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2004) (accrual is a federal-question issue for §1983)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (accrual when injury-causing conduct occurs)
- McCarty v. Gilchrist, 646 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2011) (state-law tolling rules for §1983 characterized)
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (Colorado tolling rules for §1983 actions)
- Braxton v. Zavaras, 614 F.3d 1156 (Colo. 2010) (equitable tolling limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- Industrial Constructors Corp. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 15 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 1994) ( accrual and discovery principles for §1983)
- Robbins v. United States, 624 F.2d 971 (10th Cir. 1980) (knowledge of injury governs accrual; temporary belief irrelevant)
- Smith v. City of Enid, 149 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 1998) (injury: violation of constitutional right; accrual when rights violated)
- Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (statutes of limitations can bar otherwise valid claims)