Sheldon Stephens v. Kevin Clash
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13643
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Sheldon Stephens met Kevin Clash in 2004 when Stephens was 16; they engaged in a sexual relationship that Stephens alleges continued for years and involved interstate transportation.
- Stephens sued in March 2013 alleging federal claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (encompassing violations of §§ 2422 and 2423) and a New York sexual battery claim; he was over 18 by 2006.
- Defendant Clash moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred; the district court dismissed the federal claims as untimely and later dismissed the state battery claim applying Pennsylvania’s borrowing statute and New York’s one-year limitations period.
- The Third Circuit considered (1) whether the federal discovery rule applies to § 2255 claims and (2) whether Pennsylvania’s extended childhood-sexual-abuse limitations (§ 5533) could save Stephens’s state claim given the borrowing statute.
- The Third Circuit held the discovery rule does apply to § 2255, but concluded Stephens’s pleadings showed he knew of the injury by 2006 (when he reached adulthood), so his federal claims were untimely; the court also held New York’s one-year limitation (which first barred the claim) governed the state claim, rendering it untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal discovery rule applies to claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 | Discovery rule should toll § 2255 limitations because victims may be unaware of distribution or effects of abuse | § 2255’s text (including its infancy exception) and structure counsel against applying a general discovery rule | Discovery rule applies to § 2255 (court finds no clear congressional command to exclude it) |
| Whether Stephens’s § 2255 claims are saved by the discovery rule or infancy extension | Stephens only discovered psychological injury in 2011; discovery rule or § 2255’s 3-year post-disability window should save claims | Complaint shows Stephens was aware of the sexual relationship and injury by 2006; claims filed in 2013 are untimely | Claims untimely: pleadings show limitations ran by 2006, so dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Pennsylvania’s borrowing statute permits applying PA’s 12-year childhood-sexual-abuse period (§ 5533) instead of New York’s 1-year battery period | § 5533 should govern tolling/limitations so the state claim is timely | Borrowing statute requires applying the period that first bars the claim; New York’s 1-year rule first barred it | New York’s 1-year period governs under borrowing statute; § 5533 does not revive claim; state claim untimely |
| Proper use of Rule 12(b)(6) to decide statute-of-limitations when discovery rule asserted | Plaintiff need not plead facts to overcome affirmative defenses; dismissal inappropriate if complaint doesn’t reveal accrual date | If complaint on its face shows claim accrued outside the limitations period even under discovery rule, dismissal is proper | Dismissal proper here because complaint itself shows claimant knew of injury by time limitations ran |
Key Cases Cited
- William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009) (analysis on applying discovery rule to federal statutes)
- William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 646 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2011) (clarifies discovery rule as a tolling doctrine)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (congressional specification of exceptions may preclude implied exceptions)
- United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) (declining to read equitable tolling into statute with explicit exceptions)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (limitations begin when plaintiff knows or should know of injury regardless of later appreciation of full extent)
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (harm from distribution of child pornography exacerbates injury)
- Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2014) (applying discovery rule to federal statutes where structure and policy favor it)