44 F. Supp. 3d 504
D. Vt.2014Background
- Shovah sues Mercure under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for alleged interstate sex-crime conduct against a minor, occurring before May 11, 1994.
- Complaint filed August 10, 2011; Shovah also seeks to add Vermont-law claims via a First Amended Complaint.
- Mercure moves for summary judgment arguing § 2255 claims are untimely under a six-year statute of limitations.
- Court grants amendment to add Vermont-law claims; dismisses federal § 2255 claims as untimely and questions subject-matter jurisdiction over remaining claims.
- Court orders supplemental briefing on whether diversity jurisdiction exists to support the state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed.
- Key accrual question concerns whether § 2255 claims accrue at victimization or upon discovery of injuries, and whether discovery rule applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| accrual of § 2255 claims | Shovah argues accrual occurs at discovery of injuries. | Mercure argues accrual occurs at the time of victimization, well before discovery. | Accrual at victimization; discovery rule not applied to § 2255. |
| application of discovery rule to § 2255 | Discovery rule extends accrual to when injuries are discovered. | Discovery rule does not apply to § 2255 claims in this circuit context. | Even assuming arguendo applicability, claims are untimely. |
| timeliness of federal § 2255 claims | Discovery within six-year window could render timely if accrual date is later. | Accrual occurred decades earlier; filed after statute expired. | § 2255 claims untimely; the six-year limit had run well before 2011. |
| subject-matter jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims | Diversity or supplemental jurisdiction could permit state-law claims. | Federal claims’ dismissal may foreclose supplemental § 1367 jurisdiction; diversity uncertain due to domicile issues. | Court questions jurisdiction and abates/expedites briefing; may dismiss if no diversity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Boland, 698 F.3d 877 (6th Cir. 2012) (discovery accrual rule not required for § 2255 claims)
- Singleton v. Clash, 951 F. Supp. 2d 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (plaintiffs knew of injuries at time of statutory violations; discovery rule rejected)
- Guilbert v. Gardner, 480 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (discovery rule definition for accrual in certain contexts)
- Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1998) (discovery rule considerations in accrual analysis)
- Kubrick v. United States, 444 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court 1979) (accrual when plaintiff has facts about harm and cause)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (Supreme Court 2007) (standard accrual rule for complete and present cause of action)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court 1949) (discovery rule applicability to federal statutes)