710 F.3d 762
7th Cir.2013Background
- Woods sues IDCFS, LCFS, and individuals under §1983 for due process violations alleged from failures to protect him from child sexual abuse while in state custody.
- In 1991, Woods, age 7, was removed from his biological parents and placed in a residential facility; later placed at LCC, operated by LCFS, where abuse by a 13-year-old resident was discovered in 1991.
- Woods was removed from LCC, hospitalized, and did not receive psychological counseling addressing the abuse.
- In 2004, at age 21, Woods committed acts of sexual violence; he is now serving a lengthy prison sentence for aggravated criminal sexual assault.
- Woods filed a pro se §1983 claim on November 21, 2011, alleging failure to protect; the district court dismissed as untimely, and Woods sought reconsideration arguing for a 20-year Illinois CSA Act limitations period.
- The district court denied reconsideration; the Eleventh Amendment issue against IDCFS was treated; the Seventh Circuit later modified the judgment to dismiss IDCFS for lack of jurisdiction while leaving other defendants for resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What limitations period governs §1983 in Illinois? | Woods argues the 20-year Illinois CSA Act applies. | Defendants argue the two-year general personal injury limit applies. | Two-year limit applies to all §1983 claims in Illinois. |
| Is Woods timely under accrual and tolling rules when accrual occurred in 2004 and the action was filed in 2011? | Woods contends accrual defers until discovery; tolling could extend eligibility. | Defendants argue accrual in 2004 with discovery does not toll beyond 2006. | Claim untimely; accrual in 2004 with a 2006 expiry governs. |
| Can Woods invoke the Illinois 20-year CSA Act limitations as an exception to Wilson/Owens framework? | Footnote 13 in Owens allows exception when federal interests require longer periods. | Wilson and Owens require uniform application of the state’s general PI limitations to all §1983 claims; no exception shown. | No, Woods cannot apply the 20-year CSA Act limitations; uniform applicability governs. |
| Is IDCFS a proper party under §1983 and/or subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity? | IDCFS could be proper under §1983 as a state actor or entity, potential waiver argued implicitly. | IDCFS is a state agency entitled to immunity; not a proper party for damages. | IDCFS dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; other defendants proceed. |
| Is Woods entitled to an evidentiary hearing on whether the federal interests override the state statute of limitations? | Footnote 13 suggests possible exceptions; hearing could clarify federal interests. | No evidentiary hearing warranted; precedent forecloses substitution of a different limitations period. | No evidentiary hearing; rule remains that Illinois two-year period applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (S. Ct. 1985) (directed rule to select one statute of limitations for all §1983 claims)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (S. Ct. 1989) (adopted residual PI statute when multiple state PI periods exist)
- Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42 (S. Ct. 1984) (framework for borrowing state law for §1983 claims)
- Ray v. Maher, 662 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2011) (applies Wilson/Owens framework in Illinois)
- K.H. Through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (7th Cir. 1990) (due process right after removal from custody regarding abuse)
- Slade v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of City of Milwaukee, 702 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2012) (state employees may be liable for injuries inflicted by private persons when custody removed duties)
- Walker v. Barrett, 650 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 2011) (cites CSAs in determining applicable limits)
- Blake v. Dickason, 997 F.2d 749 (10th Cir. 1993) (cites uniform application of PI limitations under §1983)