Plaintiff-appellant Laurene Cuvillier (Cuvillier) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a deprivation of rights secured by Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669b. Because we conclude that the provisions Cuvillier relies on do not give rise to individual rights, we' affirm the district court’s dismissal of .this suit.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
In 1983, Robert and Anne Harrison were granted a divorce by decree entered in Atlanta, Georgia. Anne Harrison subsequently changed her name to Laurene Cuvillier. As part of the divorce decree, Robert Harrison (Harrison) was required to pay $3,000.00 monthly in child support to Cuvillier. Harrison failed to do so. In 1990, Cuvillier terminated Harrison’s parental rights for abandonment and failure to pay child support.
In December of 1993, Cuvillier attempted to collect the past due child support through the .Georgia Department of Human Resources (GDHR). By that time, however, Harrison no longer lived in Georgia; he resided in Hazlehurst, Copiah County, Mississippi, where he owned a home and business. Accordingly, in February of 1994, GDHS forwarded a request for collection of the arrears of $261,000.00 to the Copiah County Child Support Enforcement Office (CCCSEO), a subdivision of the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS).
Cuvillier alleges that she made “repeated inquiries” regarding the status of her claims, but that CCCSEO failed to pursue them. On or after June 12, 2002, however, CCCSEO filed a court action against Harrison to collect the child support. 1 Unfortunately, Harrison died on *400 November 21, 2002, before the case could be heard in court. His estate did not pay any of the arrears.
Cuvillier (proceeding pro se, here and below) filed this suit on Monday, June 13, 2005, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various CCCSEO employees and MDHS officials: Donald Taylor, Executive Director of MDHS; Johnnie Sullivan, supervisor of CCCSEO Child Support Enforcement; El-mira Williams and Sherry Jackson, both CCCSEO caseworkers; Hugh Redhead, attorney for CCCSEO Child Support Enforcement; Richard Harris, Director of Child Support Enforcement at MDHS; and Betty Polk, the MDHS Regional Director of Child Support Enforcement MDHS. Cuvillier asserted a deprivation of rights secured by various provisions of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669b, and 45 C.F.R. §§ 303.3, 303.6, alleging specifically that:
“Defendants’ deliberate and intentional decision to take no action on collection of the child support arrears which was due to plaintiffs children; and Defendants’ failure to inform plaintiff of that decision, so that plaintiff could pursue other means of collection; resulted in plaintiff being deprived forever of her opportunity to collect support from Robert Ray Harrison.”
On August 8, 2005, Defendants moved for dismissal of Cuvillier’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that Title IV-D did not create a privately enforceable federal right, as indicated by
Blessing v. Freestone,
The district court granted Defendants’ second motion to dismiss in an opinion and order filed November 15, 2005. 2 The court concluded, “without considering whether plaintiff can maintain a claim under title IV”, that “any such putative claim would be time barred under the applicable statute of limitations.” Determining that the applicable limitations period was three years, the district court noted that, because Cuvillier filed suit on June 13, 2005, her claim “should have accrued sometime after June 13, 2002.” The court found, however, that Cuvillier’s claim accrued much earlier:
“Federal regulation promulgated in accordance with Title IV-D provides that state IV-D agencies must take action to enforce support obligations no later than 60 days after the agency is notified of a delinquency. 45 C.F.R. § 303.6(b)(2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were first apprised of Mr. Harrison’s delinquency in February 1994. Therefore, Defendants allegedly violated Plaintiffs Title IV-D rights no later than May 1, 1994, when Defendants failed to act within 60 days. Further, Plaintiff alleges that she made repeated inquiries to Defendants prior to June 12, 2002, the date Defendants began legal proceedings against Mr. Harrison. Thus, the Court can reason that Plaintiff was aware of the alleged violation of her statutory right and the resulting injury prior to June 13, 2002.”
*401 The district court also addressed Cuvillier’s argument that the Defendants’ fraudulent concealment prevented her from discovering her claims until after June 12, 2002. Observing that it was only necessary that Cuvillier knew the facts that would support a claim, the Court concluded that because she had repeatedly made inquiries regarding what action was being taken, Cuvillier was “aware of the fact that Defendants were not pursuing her claims in a timely manner more than three.years before she filed this suit.”
The district court entered final judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice on November 15, 2005. Cuvillier timely filed notice of appeal on December 14, 2005.
DISCUSSION
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review
de novo
a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
3
Hosein v. Gonzales,
IL , STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Because Congress has not specified a limitations period for section 1983 Suits, in such cases “federal courts borrow the forum state’s general personal injury limitations period.”
Piotrowski v. City of Houston,
We decline to decide this case on statute of limitations grounds. First, we find it unnecessary to do so since, as we explain below, Cuvillier has not asserted a federal right enforceable under section 1983. Second, it is less than clear that the 12(b)(6) dismissal on limitations grounds was appropriate. Using the same standard as the district court, we “must look only at the pleadings and accept all allegations in them as true.”
St. Paul Ins. Co. v. AFIA Worldwide Ins. Co.,
III. TITLE IV-D and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Section 1983 makes liable anyone who, “under color of state law, deprives a person ‘of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by' the Constitution and laws.’ ”
Blessing v. Freestone,
“First, Congress must have intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff. Wright,479 U.S., at 430 ,107 S.Ct., at 773-774 . Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the right assert-edly protected by the statute is not so Vague and amorphous’ that its enforcement would strain judicial competence. Id., at 431-32,107 S.Ct., at 774-775 . Third, the statute must unambiguously impose a binding obligation on the States. In other words, the provision giving rise to the asserted right must be couched in mandatory, rather than precatory, terms. Wilder, supra, at 510-511,110 S.Ct., at 2517-2518 ; see also Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman,451 U.S. 1 , 17,101 S.Ct. 1531 , 1539-1540,67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981) (discussing whether Congress created obligations giving rise to an implied cause of action).” Id. at 1359-60.
Once a plaintiff demonstrates that a federal statutory provision creates an individual right, a rebuttable presumption exists that the right is enforceable under section 1983. Id. at 1360.
In Blessing, five Arizona mothers with children eligible for Title IV-D child support services claimed that the state child support “agency never took adequate steps to obtain child support payments from the fathers of their children.” Id. at 1358. The Ninth Circuit had determined that the mothers had an enforceable individual right to have the state’s child support program “achieve ‘substantial compliance’ with the requirements of Title IV-D.” Id. at 1356.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Id. First, the Court stated that Title IV-D could not be analyzed “so .generally.” Id.; see also id. at 1360 (commenting that “the lower court’s holding that Title IV-D ‘creates enforceable rights’ paints with too broad a brush”). The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs needed to “identify with particularity the rights they claimed, since it is impossible to determine whether Title IV-D, as an undifferentiated whole, gives rise to undefined ‘rights.’ ” Id. at 1360 (emphasis added).
Second, the Court held that “Title IVD does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with Title IV-D.” Id. at 1356. In making this determination, the Court observed that the five mothers were not intended beneficiaries of the statutory provisions on which they relied: “[T]he requirement that a State operate its child support program in ‘substantial compliance’ with Title IV-D was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial parents, and therefore it does not constitute a federal right.” Id. at 1361. The Court explained that the “substantial compliance” standard is “simply a yardstick for the Secretary to measure the systemwide performance of a State’s Title IV-D program”; that even when a state meets the substantial compliance standard, “any individual plaintiff might still be among the 10 or 25 percent of persons whose needs ultimately go unmet”; and that, assuming a state falls below the standard, the Secretary can only reduce the state’s funding by up to five percent. Id. Title IV-D “may ultimately benefit individuals who are eligible for Title IV-D services, but', only indirectly.” Id. Further, the Court noted that regulations requiring state child support enforcement units to have “sufficient staff’ espouse an “undefined standard” that would strain judicial competence if enforced through section 1983. Id. at 1362.
*404 While the Court concluded that the Arizona mothers had failed to establish that Title IV-D gave them federal rights, the Court nevertheless declined to foreclose the possibility that some Title IV-D provisions might give rise to individual rights. Id. The Court stated:
“For example, respondent Madrid alleged that the state agency managed to collect some support payments from her ex-husband but failed to pass through the first $50 of each payment, to which she was purportedly entitled under the pre-1996 version of § 657(b)(1). Although § 657 may give her a federal right to receive a specified portion of the money collected on her behalf by Arizona, she did not explicitly request such relief in the complaint.” Id. (citation omitted).
The Court concluded that, regardless of whether any Title IV-D provisions secure a federal right, the five Arizona mothers had not clearly alleged a violation of any such particular right. See id. (sending the case back to the district court to “determine exactly what rights, considered in their most concrete, specific form, respondents are asserting”).
In the instant case, Cuvillier cites several specific statutory provisions that she claims support her contention that Title IV-D gives her a federal right to child support or child support collection. These are: 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-652(a)(1), (h) and 654(4)(B),(13). 9 Cuvillier asserts that *405 these specific provisions satisfy Blessing’s three factor test. We disagree and conclude that Cuvillier has not shown that these statutory sections give her a federal right.
Although we have not addressed
post-Blessing
whether the Title IV-D provisions relied on by Cuvillier give rise to individual federal rights, we note that the Sixth Circuit faced an appeal similar to Cuvillier’s in
Clark v. Portage County, Ohio,
“For example, the state plan requirements in § 654(4)(B) do not make it clear whether an individual right would arise based on the alleged inadequacy of the state plan’s wording or from a deficiency in the enforcement efforts of the agency. The lack of such parameters indicates that, regardless of whether the Plaintiff is an intended beneficiary of Title IV-D, Congress did not intend to give her a private right of action to challenge agency actions.” Id. at 604-05. 11
We agree with the Sixth Circuit in
Clark
that “the simple lack of effectiveness by a state in enforcing support obligations does not alone give rise to an individual right.”
12
Id.
at 605. Cuvillier may in some sense be a beneficiary of the Title IV-D provisions that she cites, but Congress did not intend by those provi
*406
sions to give her an individual right enforceable through a section 1983 suit.
Gonzaga University v. Doe,
Moreover, the language of the statutory provisions cited by Cuvillier belies her assertion that Title IV-D gives her a federal right to child support or child support collection on her behalf. Specifically, the provisions’ language does not focus on the individuals benefited, but rather focuses entirely on the state agency and what the agency should be doing. For example, 42 U.S.C. § 654(4) and (13) both focus on the
state agency’s plan
for child and spousal support and the fact
that such a plan should provide for enforcement of support,
for compliance with other requirements necessary for an effective child support program, and. for equal treatment of information requests by residents and non-residents.
The subsections do not focus on the individual beneficiaries
of the state agency’s plan. This lack of focus on individuals like Cuvillier counsels against finding a federal right.
See Gonzaga Univ.,
The existence of Cuvillier’s asserted federal right is all the more clearly foreclosed considering that Title IV-D constitutes spending legislation. As the Court made clear in
Gonzaga University,
for a particular provision of a funding statute to
*407
give rise to a federal right enforceable through section 1983, Congress must have
unambiguously
conferred the right on the individual.
See
Cuvillier’s asserted right stands in contrast to the type of situation that the Court in
Blessing
suggested might — or might not — evidence a Title IV-D based right enforceable under section 1983.
See
Lastly, we reject Cuvillier’s reliance on 45 C.F.R. § 303.3 and § 303.6. Both of these sections are within part 303 of 45 C.F.R. .Ch. III (2002). Section 303.00 (“Scope and applicability of this part”) states that:
“This part prescribes:
(a) The minimum organizational and staffing requirements the State IV-D agency must meet in carrying out the IV-D program, and
(b) The standards for program operation which the IV-D agency must meet.”
Thus, these regulations are focused on and directed at, and speak to, the State and its program, not at or to individual beneficiaries. Section 303.3 (“Location of noncustodial parents”) provides that “the IV-D agency must attempt to locate all noncustodial parents,” § 303.3(b), and “[w]ithin no more than 75 calendar days of determining that [knowing the noncustodial parent’s] location is necessary [to enforcement] ... ensure that location information is sufficient to take the next appropriate action in a case.” Section 303.6 states that “the IV-D agency must maintain and use an effective system for: ... (c) Enforcing the obligation by: ... (2) [t]aking any appropriate enforcement action ... unless service of process is necessary ... within no more than 30 calendar days of identifying a delinquency ... or the location of the noncustodial parent, whichever occurs later. If service of process is necessary ... service must be completed (or unsuccessful attempts to serve process must be documented ...), and enforcement' action taken if process is served, within no later than 60 calendar days of identifying a delinquency ... or the location of the noncustodial parent, whichever occurs later.” Again, this is directed to the state and its focus is on the state’s “maintenance and use” of “an effective system” (emphasis added). The mandate is for the state to maintain a *408 child support system. These regulations simply do not purport to create an individual federal right in beneficiaries. 15
No doubt Congress meant for individuals like Cuvillier to fall within the sphere of Title-IV’s benefits. As Gonzaga University indicates, however, this circumstance is insufficient to find a federal right secured by the statutory scheme. Congress did not intend the provisions Cuvillier relies on to give rise to an individual federal right to child support or child support collection.
CONCLUSION
Because we find that Cuvillier has not asserted a violation of a federal right for which redress may be sought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this suit.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. The complaint alleges that "the claims herein were fraudulently concealed by one or more of the Defendants, and Plaintiff, although exercising reasonable diligence, was not able to know or discover her claim until after June 12, 2002”, and that defendants Sullivan (CCCSEO Child Support Enforcement supervisor) and Polk (Regional Director, Child Support Enforcement, MDHS) had “re *400 peatedly assured Plaintiff that they were attempting to collect the arrears.”
. The court's November 15, 2005 order states that the case "is before the Court on” Defendants’ first and second motions to dismiss.
. Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss an action for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
. In the past, this court has frequently used the expression that a case will not be dismissed " ‘unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' ”
E.g., Kennedy v. Tangipahoa Parish Library Bd. of Control,
.Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated § 15 — 1— 49, "Limitations applicable to actions not otherwise specifically provided for,” states in pertinent part that “[a]ll actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed shall be commenced within three (3) years next after the cause of such action accrued, and not after.”
. The district court cited 45 C.F.R. § 303.6(b)(2) for the proposition that "state IV-D agencies must take action to enforce support obligations no later than 60 days after the agency is notified of a delinquency." However, the correct citation appears to be § 303.6(c)(2).
. Defendants argue that even if Cuvillier is correct that her cause of action accrued on June 12, 2002, the three-year limitations period bars her suit because she did not file her complaint until June 13, 2005, one day after three years had passed. As Cuvillier points out, however, this argument overlooks the fact that June 13, 2005 was a Monday. Therefore, the case was properly filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), which states in pertinent part that when computing a period of time allowed "by any applicable stalute,” "The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, ... in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days.”
. Moreover, as Cuvillier points out, although the district court correctly noted that 45 C.F.R. § 303.6(c)(2) states that when service of process is necessary, enforcement action must be taken “within no later than 60 calendar days of identifying a delinquency,” the district court omitted the end of that provision, which makes clear that enforcement action must be taken within 60 days of whichever occurs later — identifying a delinquency or identifying "the location of the noncustodial parent.”
. 42 U.S.C. § 651, "Authorization of appropriations,” states:
"For the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their children and the spouse (or former spouse) with whom such children are living, locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining child and spousal support, and assuring that assistance in obtaining support will be available under this part to all children (whether or not eligible for assistance under a state program funded under part A of this subchap-ter) for whom such assistance is requested, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this part.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 651 (West 2003).
42 U.S.C. § 652(a)(1) states:
“(a) Establishment of separate organizational unit; duties
The Secretary shall establish, within the Department of Health and Human Services a separate organizational unit, under the direction of a designee of the Secretary, who shall report directly to the Secretary and who shall—
(1) establish such standards for State programs for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child support and support for the spouse (or former spouse) with whom the noncustodial parent’s child is living as he determines to be necessary to assure that such programs will be effective;” 42
U.S.C.A. § 652(a)(1) (West Supp.2007). Subsection (h) of 42 U.S.C. § 652 states:
“(h) Prompt State response to requests for child support assistance
The standards required by subsection (a)(1) of this section shall include standards establishing time limits governing the period or periods within which a State must accept and respond to requests (from States, jurisdictions thereof, or individuals who apply for services furnished by the State agency under this part or with respect to whom an assignment pursuant to section 608(a)(3) of this title is in effect) for assistance in establishing and enforcing support orders, including requests to locate noncustodial parents, establish paternity, and initiate proceedings to establish and collect child support awards.” Id. § 652(h).
The portions of 42 U.S.C. § 654, "State plan for child and spousal support,” cited by Cuvil-lier state:
"A State plan for child and spousal support must—
(4) provide that the State will—
(B) enforce any support obligation established with respect to—
(i) a child with respect to whom the State provides services under the plan; or
(ii) the custodial parent of such a child;
(13) provide that the State will comply with such other requirements and stan *405 dards as the Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an effective program for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining support orders, and collecting support payments and provide that information requests by parents who are residents of other States be treated with'the same priority as requests by parents who are residents of the State submitting the plan.” Id. § 654(4) & (13).
.Post
-Blessing,
a few other sister circuits have faced issues related to child support under Title IV-D. For example, the Eighth Circuit held that 42 U.S.C. § 657 "does not create an individual right to distribution in strict compliance with its terms.”
Walters v. Weiss,
. The court did not actually decide whether the plaintiff was an intended beneficiary of Title IV-D.
See
. We note that, while the Sixth Circuit in
Clark
found the plaintiff's asserted rights too "vague and amorphous” and compared this deficiency to the interests of the Arizona mothers in
Blessing,
we have previously concluded that
Blessing
"never reached the vague-and-amorphous question because it found that the plaintiffs had not ‘identified with particularity the rights they claimed.’ "
Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries Inc. v. Hood,
. In
Gonzaga University,
the Court considered whether a student may sue a private university for damages under section 1983 based on provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 88 Stat. 571, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, that “prohibit the federal funding of educational institutions that have a policy or practice of releasing education records to unauthorized persons.”
. As we have previously noted,
Gonzaga Uni
v
arsity
illustrates that the Supreme Court’s "approach to § 1983 enforcement of federal statutes has been increasingly restrictive; in the end, very few statutes are held to confer rights enforceable under § 1983.”
Johnson v. Hous. Auth. of Jefferson Parish,
. We also note that in
Arrington v. Helms,