Lake v. Arnold

LAKE; Elizabeth J. Arnold Justin Lake, husband

Wilson

wife, Appellants, ARNOLD; Audrey L. Ar-

Frederick S.

nold, wife; Daniel M. husband

Friday M.D.; Tyrone Hospital; Ralph

W. Crawford M.D.

No. 98-3558. Court of Appeals,

United States

Third Circuit. Sept.

Argued 1999.

Filed Nov. Banasick, Bedford, (Argued),

Kristin M. PA, Attorney for Appellant. Wicks,

Stephen D. Law Office of Ste- Wicks, Altoona, PA, Attorney for phen D. Audrey and Appellees Frederick S. Arnold L. Arnold. McCormick, Bahl, (Argued),

David R. Person, Reeder, Nicholas, Bahl, Knecht & PA, Attorney Appellees Williamsport, Ralph M.D. and W. Friday, Daniel M. Crawford, M.D. DeMarco, (Argued), Doyle &

John V. PA, McCrory, Pittsburgh, Attorney for Hospital. Appellee Tyrone ROTH, Before: and Circuit SLOVITER 1,Judge. Judges POGUE THE COURT OPINION OF ROTH, Judge: Circuit mentally Lake is retarded. Elizabeth perma- was years age, at 16 she husband, and her nently sterilized. She Judge sitting by designation. Pogue, 1. Honorable Donald C. for the Trade, of International United States Court mentally retard- Justin, they ing can the sterilization of appeal in this whether ask They that on the advice of challenge the sterilization state ed. contend still by against bringing family physician, and federal law Dr. Isen- Chester step-mother father and who authorized hospital taken to the berg, Elizabeth was per- who operation, against the doctors step-mother. Despite and by her father it, it against hospital where formed mentally re- the fact that Elizabeth was Although agree we with performed. illiterate, was em- allegedly hospital tarded the District Court’s decision sign, her a form to ployees gave consent by state claims are time-barred Lakes’ authorizing procedure. limita- Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of Friday, Dr. su- signed the form. Daniel suits, we do not tions for Crawford, by Ralph per- Dr. pervised with its conclusion that the federal agree any At did surgery. point formed the no untimely. claims are also Giv- have Elizabeth’s of the defendants seek to en our earlier decision that the interests, parents’ to her inter- opposed protected pur- are a class for the retarded ests, appro- reviewed a court or other 1985(3), must poses of U.S.C. priate forum. whether federal doctrine determine surgery claim that The Lakes after escape permit

will Elizabeth Lake step-mother Elizabeth’s father and re- bar of the statute of limitations on her and had her do moved her from school For the reasons we ex- federal claims. housekeeping duties in their home. She below, to plain we will remand this case the remained a member of Arnold house- to make determina- District Court this twenties, until in hold she was her in with proceedings tion further consistent a group she moved into home. opinion. this May In Justin and Elizabeth de- In affirming addition to the dismissal of get cided to married. December claims, Elizabeth’s state behest, gy- at visited a Justin’s Elizabeth affirm we also the District Court’s dismiss- necologist couple’s to discuss the desire to al of law loss of consortium Justin’s state visit, family. During start a the doc- Finally, claim. we affirm the District she could not bear tor told Elizabeth that request Court’s denial of the Lakes’ to ligation. children because of her 1977 tubal complaint. amend their Allegedly, this visit to the doctor was the first time that learned that her Elizabeth I. Facts surgery permanently had left Plaintiff-appellant Elizabeth Arnold were mar- sterilized. Justin and Elizabeth Ventura, California, in Lake was born in ried in 1994. Ar- Helga Hadvig 1961 to and Frederick twelve, nold. Elizabeth Until she was History II. Procedural lived with her mother and her mother’s boyfriend in Her then Minnesota. father The Lakes first filed this civil action on Saxton, Pennsylva- invited her to move to 31, 1995, May in state court nia, wife, Audrey to live with him and his (1) following Eliz- against the defendants: accepted Arnold. Elizabeth the offer. (2) father, Arnold, abeth’s Frederick S. special Elizabeth attended education (3) Arnold, Audrey L. Dr. stepmother, through eighth grade, classes which (4) Friday, Ralph Daniel M. Dr. W. Craw- at completed age she 16 when she left (5) ford, Tyrone Hospital. and The action school. counts, state alleged including nine in- year, battery, negligence,

That lack of same June for consent, conduct, ligation Tyrone outrageous underwent a at Hos- formed and tubal counts, pital, Tyrone, Pennsylvania. The Lakes as well as two federal one under allege hospital policy § had a allow- for violation under color of U.S.C. objections. timely filed The right parties Both Elizabeth’s constitutional law of state to amend their requested 42 U.S.C. also leave the other under Lakes and procreate 1985(3) new, deprive unspecified, Eliza- but conspiracy complaint allege Court, because she right procreate facts. The District beth filed a Justin also recom- adopted Magistrate Judge’s retarded. was on Eliza- consortium based claim of loss of on the statute of limitations mendations infertility. loss of consortium claim beth’s and on Justin’s request for leave to and denied the Lakes’ successfully petitioned Hospital Tyrone v. Ar- complaint. amend their See Lake Fol- to federal court. remove the case 1998) (W.D.Pa. nold, No. 95-245J Oct. removal, filed an plaintiffs lowing (Lake III).3 It this order All the defendants complaint. amended appeal. Lakes now pursuant to dismiss then filed motions 12(b)(6) failure to state Fed.R.Civ.Pro. subject had matter The District Court Magistrate Judge’s Adopting claim. federal civil jurisdiction over Lakes’ Recommendation, District Report and rights claims under 28 U.S.C. the two fed- 1996 dismissed June jurisdiction their relat- supplemental over claims, the re- remanded rights eral civil §" ed state claims 28 U.S.C. court, the state claims to maining state jurisdiction under 28 appellate We have jurisdiction. relinquished § 1291. U.S.C. appealed this deci- Elizabeth and Jústin 2, 1997, May we reversed sion. On III. of Limitations Statute to dismiss the Court’s decision District claims, concluding that federal civil Review A. Standard of facts to alleged the Lakes had sufficient action under a claim of state sustain review of plenary exercise We mentally disabled 19832 the Lakes’ dismissal of the District Court’s purposes class for the protected were a grounds on statute of limitations 1985(3) claim. Lake v. conspiracy §a See 12(b)(6). Algrant See under Fed.R.Civ.P. Cir.1997) (Lake (3d Arnold, 112 F.3d 682 Part Evergreen Valley v. Nurseries Ltd. I). remanded the case to District We Cir.1997). (3d 178, 181 nership, 126 F.3d proceedings. Court for further to the District plenary review extends This appli interpretation of remand, choice and the amended Court’s response in On and its conclusion tolling principles cable the Lakes’ state complaint that reasserted tolling prevented that facts claims, again the defendants and federal See Sheet Metal dismiss, contending of limitations. this time statute moved to Inc., 949 Group, v. 2300 Local 19 Lakes’ claims were time-barred that Workers (3d Cir.1991) 1274, (citing Ver of F.2d 1278 relevant statute by the Inc., Market, 43, 896 F.2d 45 Judge once nau v. Vic’s Magistrate The limitations. (3d Cir.1990)), assume, pur for the defendants, recom- We again ruled for review, facts the that all the of our poses and Recommenda- mending Report in his are true complaint in their allege Lakes Elizabeth’s claims be dismissed tion that them, nonmoving par give as the loss of and we and that Justin’s as time-barred below, of all reasonable the benefit on substan- ties consortium claim be dismissed Arnold, facts. can draw from these inferences one Lake v. No. 95- grounds. tive 1998) (Lake II). (W.D.Pa. 10, District Court’s determina- review the Mar. We 245J Audrey defense day's supervisor and allegations that Arnold's 2. We that the Lakes' found pro- legal duty were ade- Tyrone Hospital was a state actor no owed Elizabeth she quate III, to dismiss. to withstand motion slip op. 3-4. at 3-4 nn. See Lake tection. deci- these party, appeals Neither Judge Dr. Magistrate also dismissed 3. The them. we do not address sions and was not Dr. Fri- defense that he Crawford's 366 42 injury suits. Pa.C.S. personal of state law de novo. See Salve for

tions (West 1999).4 Russell, 225, § 499 5524 Regina College v. U.S.

231, 1217, 190 113 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. begins The of limitations (1991); County Allegheny, Nelson v. time the cause of action to run “from the Cir.1995). (3d 1010, 1012 F.3d accrued,” previously which we have inter significant preted to mean when “the first Applicable of Limitations B. Statute the claim necessary event to make suable” adopted Magis The District Corp., Ross v. Johns-Manville occurs. that Penn Judge’s (3d trate recommendation Cir.1985); 823, gener 766 F.2d see sylvania’s two-year (West 1999). statute of limitations 5502(a) ally Pa.C.S. governed both lawsuits Thus, Elizabeth’s claim under state law state and federal claims. See the Lakes’ in accrued when she was sterilized. agree Pennsylva III. we Lake While Although theoretically Elizabeth could claims, nia law Elizabeth’s state law bars brought have her claim she con with the District agree do Court’s practical that as a matter she tends could are determination the federal claims years not have done so because she was 16 Although Pennsyl also time-barred. old and retarded. If a claim applied vania statute of limitations is to the brought were to have been on her behalf claims, tolling may federal doctrine time, brought at that it would have been Eliza applicable be to determine whether guardians, step her father and timely. beth’s federal claims are See Osh see, Mummert, mother, e.g., v. Walker Levin, Fishbein, & Ber iver Sedran (1958), Pa. 146 A.2d but it (3d Cir.1994) man, 38 F.3d guardians arranged was the who fact tolling peri (applying federal limitations performed. the sterilization case); in employment od discrimination two-year period, Under the Humphrey, Heck v. 997 F.2d 357-58 expired Elizabeth’s cause of action (7th Cir.1993). below, appli As we discuss years operation. two At the time after cation of the federal doctrine leads sterilization, the statute of may us to conclude federal claims minority limitations did not toll for either not be barred. Ditzler, incompetence. See Walters v. (1967). Al- Pa. A.2d 833 Injury 1. State Personal Claims the was later amended in though gamut they Elizabeth’s state claims run the 1984 to toll minors until reached foT injury age common to that amendment was not retroac- claims medi- (1) suits, alleging Maycock Gravely Corp., tive. v. malpractice cal bat- See (2) (1986). tery, negligence by parents, Pa.Super. 508 A.2d 330 Even Elizabeth’s (3) doctors, retroactive, however, if hospital, the and the lack of it were Elizabeth’s (4) consent, outrageous expired making con- claim have informed Moreover, by parents, untimely. duct her the doctors and the her 1993 claims still Court, hospital. adopting The District the the statute of limitations was never recommendation, Magistrate Judge’s incompetency dis- amended to include as tolling. them all by grounds missed as time barred Penn- Pa.C.S. (West 1999).5 Thus, two-year sylvania’s statute of limitations Elizabeth’s mental statutory language pertinent neglect negligence 4. The reads in or unlawful violence or part: of another. following proceedings The actions and must 1999). (West 42 Pa.C.S. 5524 years: be commenced within two ... statutory language (2) 5. The reads: damages An action to recover for in- (a) juries person Except pro- the or for the death of an General as otherwise rule.— statute, by insanity imprisonment by wrongful the vided individual caused act or failing the causes for her to discover preserving were not a basis retardation injury. par- These characteristics are tolling her Pennsylvania’s claim under her on depend ticular to Elizabeth and do not statute.6 type injury she suffered. the does, common law Pennsylvania however, room,” argue, The Lakes now “breathing as some allow possible it for Elizabeth to recognized, might that Judge’s report Magistrate rule, discovery rule’s reasonableness discovery meet recognizes in that it standard, regardless of her mental retar until a of limitations tolls the statute which However, illiteracy. the Lakes the harm dation and actually discovers plaintiff in this action that Elizabeth alleged inflicted but latent have by an earlier caused scope the nature and Pa. could not understand Morgan, v. injury. Ayers In (1959) operation. light represen of this statute of of the (permitting 154 A.2d 788 injuries inability appreciate tation her plaintiffs to toll for surgery scope a nature and of sterilization as leaving doctor developed later from that would, surgery). person a we must con during reasonable sponge in his abdomen not clude that Elizabeth could meet Nevertheless, discovery rule Moreover, reasonableness standard. be Elizabeth’s state does not affect requires plaintiff cause law it circumstances which because the a reasonable amount of dili to exercise nature of depend on the can be invoked claim, vigilance pursuing gence and charac any specific than injury rather Rosenberg, Pa.Super. v. see Redenz plaintiff might to the unique teristics (1987), 430, 520 A.2d recognizing her from prevent otherwise discovery of the rule is further invocation action; such injury a cause of by the fact that she took no undermined characteristics include one’s unique nature of her steps inquire into the Brown, See, v. e.g., Dalrymple state. decades after it operation until almost two (1997) (denying dis Pa. 701 A.2d 164 addition, in determin performed. was memory syn repressed rule for covery diligence, again we would evaluate the ing Reed, drome); Pa. Molineux inquiry by the reasonable adequacy of the defendants (permitting 532 A.2d 792 standard, not the standard person plain limitations defense because to assert and illiterate. retarded fraudulent conceal tiff had no evidence of ment). one other circumstance There is objective prevents standard This plaintiff escape can claim. Her under which pursuing from latent; therefore, Pennsylvania’s statute of limita rigors it not injury was was have intention tions: when the defendants pre nature of the the latent ally plaintiff or concealed of it. It was her misinformed knowing vented her from they are es- illiteracy that information from her so and her mental retardation any yet by who has not attained the time limited individual does not extend the age of 18. subchapter for the commencement of (West 1999). § 42 Pa.C.S. 5533 matter. (b) Infancy. entitled to an individual —If Supreme justified Pennsylvania 6. The unemancipated bring a action is an civil personal injury of the its strict construction ac- time cause of action minor at the regard to the statute of limitations crues, minority period shall not be opinion v. incompetent mert, in Walker Mum in its period within portion of the time deemed (1958), 146, 146 A.2d 291 394 Pa. the action must be commenced. which prac emphasized that the the court in which person have the same time for Such shall bring guardian, who can appointing a tice of attaining commencing ma- an action after incompetent, would miti suit on behalf of the by provi- jority consequences allowed to others from a gate against any as is harsh subchapter. As used in this of the statute of limitations sions of this strict construction incompetent. against "minor” shall mean subsection the term tolling of limitations and their related invoking the of limita- ute topped from Ditzler, judicial own provisions, procedures. v. 424 Pa. for its tions. See Walters (1967). above, As we noted A.2d 833 allege that the the Lakes do not 2. Federal of Action Under Causes Eliz- intentionally misinformed defendants 1983 and 1985 Sections about her sterilization. abeth The Lakes also assert Finally, unwilling accept are sterilizing in permanently defendants’ role argument that we should distin the Lakes’ causes gives rise two federal Pennsylvania precedent that guish existing violating her substantive due of action for subjective relying on mental prohibits process right procreate. See Skinner v. discovery rule characteristics to invoke the Oklahoma, 535, 62 316 U.S. S.Ct. “permanent” “biological” nature on the (1942). L.Ed. 1655 Because neither the defen of Elizabeth’s mental state. As 1985(3) § § contains a statute of 1983 nor out, are medi correctly point dants these limitations, rely we must on 42 U.S.C. such, legal cal rather than distinctions. As § our of the guides which selection for they cannot serve as a basis reinter appropriate period gap. time to fill the clearly preting what seems to be stated requires us to use the statute Section Pennsylvania incompetency law: mental limitations for the state where the fed personal does not toll the statute of application eral court sits unless its limitations. with fed conflict with the Constitution or eral law.7 sum, under the In limitations, statute of Elizabeth had two determining which state

years operation from the date of her period in federal civil use bring personal injury law claims. her state cases, general, we look to the resid statutory tolling provi Neither the state inju ual statute of limitations for sions, tolling which do not authorize Garcia, ry actions. Wilson v. 471 U.S. incompetency, the state nor discov 261, 276-80, 105 S.Ct. 85 L.Ed.2d 254 rule, objective ery applies which an stan (1985). incorporate any We must also rel an mining dard for deter individual evant state rules. Hardin v. injury, a latent Eliz should discover afford Straub, 536, 543-44, 490 U.S. 109 S.Ct. any relief from abeth the conclusion (1989). Thus, 104 L.Ed.2d 582 by her state are Penn time-barred § originating 1983 and 1985 actions sylvania’s two-year statute of limitations. Pennsylvania, harsh, we look to 42 Pa.C.S. appears While this conclusion Bartle, §§ 5524 and 5533. See Rose v. principles comity and federalism be (3d Cir.1989) (§ 1983); courts, tween state and federal we must F.2d Rougher respect University Pittsburgh, the state’s decision to determine (3d Cir.1989) (§ 1985). appropriate policies, including the stat- F.2d provides, provisions necessary 7. Title 42 U.S.C. in relevant are deficient in the part: punish suitable and furnish remedies of- law, law, jurisdiction against The and criminal mat- fenses the common ters conferred on the district courts changed by modified the constitution Title, provisions of this and of Title “CIVIL and statutes of the State wherein the court RIGHTS,” "CRIMES,” Title for the having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal protection persons of all in the United held, causes is so as the same is not far rights, States in their and civil for their and laws inconsistent with the Constitution vindication, shall be exercised and enforced States, the United shall be extended to conformity in with the laws of the United govern and the said courts in the trial and States, so far as such laws are suitable to disposition of the cause. effect; carry same into but in all cases added). (emphasis they adapted object, where are not to the or

369 - power. vent future abuses of state See recognized analyzing in As Grattan, 42, III.B.l, 468 104 in Burnett v. U.S. Part Elizabeth’s state (1984). such, re L.Ed.2d 36 As of limitations S.Ct. 82 Pennsylvania’s give these remedial statutes strive to vic injury claims to be all quires to sue for relief. opportunity and tims the See two-year period a time brought within contrast, 104 2924. In state Be id. at S.Ct. incompetence. is not tolled for statutes of limitations are not crafted to occurred sterilization cause frame, policies. any injury promote federal remedial See Oc time outside this well EEOC, Ins. barred as cidental Co. U.S. appear to be she suffered Life 355, 367, conclusion, is 97 S.Ct. 53 L.Ed.2d 402 untimely. This legislatures first determine do (noting “[s]tate We must premature. tolling provisions period state’s devise their limitations with whether mind”). law and conflict with federal national This discon themselves interests that, squarely gov question occasionally, that is not nect the state policy, means and Hardin. statute of must be modified to erned Wilson limitations at promote the federal interests bar. involves the second “principally Wilson mind, § applying step process background [of 1988]: in the With this let us appropriate’ ‘the most or carefully the selection of look at the federal claims that of limita analogous’ asserting. most state statute held in Lake I ‘the Elizabeth is We Wilson, retarded, class, § mentally 1988 claims. as a are apply” tions to The poli protection rights at 105 S.Ct. 1938. under civil U.S. entitled 1985(3) Wilson, i.e., uniformity, § that motivated laws because cies such as of unneces certainty, and the minimization person respon- fact that a bears no [t]he analysis frame sary litigation, do not our handicap, sibility for a combined with concerned with because we are instead practiced pervasive discrimination prong: § third whether the state 1988’s against mentally retarded and the with federal statute conflicts rejection discrimination emerging of this Hardin, at 490 U.S. policy. law and equali- with our ideals of incompatible (concluding 544 n. S.Ct. ty us that whatever the outer convinces pertinent “more policies are Wilson’s concept, an animus boundaries of the appropri state laws are determine which retarded against directed application of those laws ate than whether the elements of class-based includes 1983.”). Similarly, §of policies fosters the discriminatory motivation. invidiously whether although analyzed Hardin (quoting Novotny v. Great 112 F.3d at 688 § 1983’s general conflicted with statutes Ass’n, F.2d Am. Fed. and Loan Sav. deterrence, it policies compensation and (internal (3d Cir.1978)) quota ignore that courts should did not hold omitted). As we tion marks and brackets provi particular tolling whether state’s out, pointed involuntary also .sterilization with federal law and itself conflicts sion of this discrimination one manifestation then, still, decide wheth policy. must We mentally incompetent. id. against the tolling rule satisfies Pennsylvania’s er articles). Eliza law review (citing at 688 v. Toma Regents Board inquiry. See are based on the beth’s federal claims nio, 478, 486, 100 S.Ct. 446 U.S. right pro violation of her constitutional (1980) (requiring determina L.Ed.2d claims are the Consequently, create. tolling rule whether the New York tion of 1985(3) 1983 are de type that law). contradicted signed protect. Moreover, matter, policy under the federal §§ policy As a protected are a 1985(3) mentally retarded victims designed compensate are class, not be denied statutory Elizabeth should federal constitutional whose solely because of her mental right to sue pre- and to have been violated 370 (1st Cir.1993) 1, case, (remanding for factual In her men- 4-5 Elizabeth’s

retardation. men alleged as to whether incompetency was the reason her determination tal protected justified tolling). to have Fed guardians, ought equitable who tal illness her, sought to sterilize her and the reason may courts toll statutes of limitations eral hospital performed operation. “in plaintiff for federal laws where the in allowing any tolling, even an ex- Not extraordinary way prevent some has been one, traordinary puts situation such as this asserting rights.” his or her Rob ed from at Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations (3d Dalton, 1018, v. 107 F.3d 1022 inson objectives § odds with the 1983 Cir.1997) Levin, (citing Oshiver v. Fish 1985(3) individual, by barring § an foster bein, Berman, & 38 F.3d Sedran class, protected of a especially a member (3d Cir.1994)); City Bowen v. 1387 see also case, in deprived, who was York, 467, 480, New 476 U.S. 106 S.Ct. ability bring through guard- a claim (1986) (authorizing 90 L.Ed.2d 462 ians, seeking compensation from and de- equitable tolling where consistent with Consequently, rigidity terrence.8 intent).9 congressional pre The doctrine Pennsylvania statute of limitations a from its own party profiting vents from a regard incompetence, to mental absent Oshiver, wrong doing. F.3d at See 38 protect than guardian who will rather 1388. jeopardize rights, directly those conflicts right with as a re- Elizabeth’s Equitable tolling stops remedy a violation of her person tarded running of limitations from when constitutionally protected rights. We are the date on which the claim accrued has obligated apply thus not that state rule. already tolling passed. Equitable See id. applied brought can be to suits under the tolling the state rules When federal statutes the state policy, contradict federal law or in certain statute of limitations would otherwise frus limited circumstances we can turn to fed see, Heck, policy, e.g., trate federal 997 tolling eral doctrine. See Heck v. Hum recognized, F.2d at because as Wilson (7th Cir.1993) 997 F.2d phrey, “adopted” operates state rule a “as (recognizing equitable tolling applicable to responsive federal rule to the need when pro 1983 actions where state limitations Wilson, impaired.” ever a right federal is policy); conflicts with vision federal Boos a Cir.1999) U.S. at 105 S.Ct. 1938. When (2d Runyon, 201 v. F.3d plaintiff requests equitable tolling federal (recognizing person’s for a underlying request but facts are disability case-specific” “highly is unclear, disputed may a court remand case); declining apply but instant actually the case to determine if the facts Douglas v. McDonnell Corp., Grant (9th Cir.1998) support tolling. Nunnally, 996 F.2d F.3d (permitting at If allegations prove 5-7. Elizabeth’s on equitable tolling of a state limita true, remand to be we conclude that in this period excep tions federal claims situation, finding pres guardian conspires tional circumstances but none where a ent); MacCausland, Nunnally deprive mentally F.2d a incompetent person case, lively plaintiff respect 8. deterrence a is of less requires misleads with to her action; because (2) concern court now plaintiff cause of where the has proceeding guardians before can con prevented asserting been from her claim as a sent to their ward’s sterilization. See 20 Pa. circumstances; extraordinary result of other 5221(d)(1). re C.S.A. See also In Terwilli (3) plaintiff or where the asserts her claims in (1982) ger, Pa.Super. A.2d wrong timely manner but has done so in the (holding by guardian’s sterilization consent Oshiver, at We are forum. 38 F.3d 1387. order). requires court only concerned in this with case second scenario, extraordinary where circumstances Equitable tolling appropriate in three general prevent plaintiff timely filing. scenarios: where a defendant ac- from her constitutional and civil rights, equita- [T]he procedures established for ap- the tolling might ble be appropriate. pointment Eliza- guardians afford sufficient would then beth be entitled to protection revive the to individuals who are non two-year period that the Pennsylvania law compos mentis that their claims will be provides bring for her to her claim. See instituted within permissible the period Oshiver, 38 F.3d at 1389. thereby diminishes the risk that the rights of incompetents will impaired not, We are in remanding this case to by our holding that their disability does Court, the District holding that a mentally not toll the running of the statute of incompetent plaintiff would never be bound applicable limitations to per- actions for by state statute of provisions limitations sonal injury. or, federal civil rights actions alternatively, that she would be by Walker, evaluated a more 146 A.2d at 291. The unusual lenient subjective Robinson, test. 107 aspect of case, then, is that guard- Cf. F.3d at 1022-23 (recognizing that a liberal themselves, ians who should have been interpretation of equitable excep- tolling protecting interests, in fact rule). tion would fact, swallow the In caused injury Thus, to her. her case previously have held that mental incom- differs from the typical more one where a petence per is not se a reason to toll the third party injures a mentally incompetent statute federal actions. person and guardian fails to bring the e.g., by Barren Barren v. United claim in a timely In fashion. the latter States, (3d Cir.1988) 839 F.2d 987 case, (reject- tolling would be inappropriate be- ing mental incompetence as reason to toll cause guardian failed had to exercise statute limitations under Federal Tort diligence. We reiterate, must Act). Claims Where permitted we have that this is a case on based state law equitable tolling for mental disability in for breach fiduciary trust to remedy a past, plaintiffs mental incom- ward’s injury caused aby guardian. This motivated, petence degree, some ais civil rights case seeking a injury that sought he to remedy. remedy to a member protected of a class Clarke, Eubanks v. 434 F.Supp. 1022 prevented is who state law from (E.D.Pa.1977) (deciding equitably toll the statute of limitations because her limitations for guardian failed protect her precisely incompetent plaintiff who was because she was mentally retarded. involuntarily committed limita- entire Because of her mental incapacity, Eliza- tions period).10 beth claims to have appre- been unable to The unique facts of Elizabeth’s claim ciate the that was done to distinguish her case others from (We where she was sterilized. of course will plaintiff argued has for tolling based on remand to determine if that allegation is mental incapacity. Generally, justified.) under a Apparently, she has not been state law where there is no equitable toll- lax bringing suit because she could not ing for mental incapacity, the guardian recognize that there was cause do so. expected protect the ward’s fact, interests. brought she her suit within two Pennsylvania does not permit tolling for years of learning from her gynecologist mental incompetency very for this reason: that she been had sterilized. Absent her 10. The Eubanks court concluded presents that it was similar concerns because the ab- expect unreasonable to ward inmate guardian sence of a could who Eliz- advocate pursue thus, his denying him abeth’s made practically impossible it his 1983 action would Thus, contradict federal protect for her to rights. failing to policy by insulating those who had denied equitably his toll statute of limitations for Eubanks, rights. F.Supp. at 1032-33. impermissibly the de- allow Similarly, while we recognize that Elizabeth’s fendants responsibility to avoid ac- their extreme, situation is not so it nonetheless simply through tions passage of time. could, facts, alleged on ry ex- these searching physical for a more

request time, amination, the necessarily equitably perhaps not have tolled until the would she to that she had been suspect a visit December gynecologist had reason learned, her a doctor so informed sterilized until her Elizabeth and husband Justin a are aware, of sterilization because the effects that Eliza- or should have become Thus, always physically observable.11 not procedure per- left her beth’s sterilization dili- that she has acted appear it would manently to bear children.13 We unable alleges. she gently, at least on the facts the District will this case to remand provisions the Permitting tolling the of equitable tolling is to determine whether cause of limitations to bar her state statute standard set out appropriate the federal civil of action frustrate would above. remedy pro- a a by barring laws guardian, because the who person tected Claim Loss of Consortium IV. sought law have under state should argue also that the The Lakes her person, harmed instead. vindicate Justin’s lower court decision dismiss sum, tolling equitably we are not be reversed. We consortium claim should solely Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations plenary have review over the District incompetence because Elizabeth’s dismissal of Lake’s consor Court’s Justin injury prevented recognizing from her her claim. tium claim for failure to state a Instead, as in when she was sterilized. Multiple v. Eastrich Investor Silverman Eubanks, fail- tolling we are it due Cir.1995). (3d LP, Fund, 51 F.3d 30 system. The guardian persons, of the ure be- protected who should have Magistrate Judge The concluded that retardation, harmed of her instead cause of consortium claims were Justin’s loss having so she her her sterilized legal grounds on be- barred substantive allegations If procreate. could not her occurred before cause remand, prove true on Elizabeth’s claims Sprague v. Lakes were married. See instance, proceed.12 equita- In this should Kaplan, Pa.Super. 392 572 A.2d 789 in- Congress’s promote ble would are (holding that consortium claims enacting §§ 1983 tent and 1985. It only injured after spouse valid when is give opportunity Elizabeth the she married). appeal, On couple is denied when she was sterilized-—ade- was argue distinguish- Lakes that their case is quate representation of her interests—and in- Sprague able from because Elizabeth’s give remedy her a chance to seek a for her jury spouse’s injury akin to a devel- (cid:127) injury. Thus, ops discovery rule over time. hold, therefore, derivative Pennsylva- preserve should also Justin’s We inju- loss nia of limitations for of consortium claim. ligations necessarily stepmother bring We 11. Tubal do not affect a father her case. that, cycle aspects guardian woman’s or other of persuaded menstrual or are not absent Bowles, femininity. interests, See L. Elizabeth The her representative Eliza- other of her Women in Clini- Fertile expected beth could be to advocate her own Disenfranchisement of Legal cal Trials: The of Ramifications course ac- interests even evaluate what Gap, Rectifying Knowledge Solutions Thus, would be her best interest. tion (1992) (discussing Vand. L.Rev. not, parents’ her fact that she left home does consequences ligation); of tubal Estate of alone, preclude application our toll- C.W., Pa.Super. 640 A.2d ing principles. because, (1994) (approving ligation tubal reasons, among it would affect other Applying equitable tolling doctrine feelings cycle or C.W.'s menstrual feminini- claims, does not Elizabeth’s federal ty)- making any on mean that we are decisions

12. The defendants argue that Elizabeth had the merits of her case. enough custody after left time she (3d Cir.1997) argue (citing that their claim falls The Lakes Lorenz v. CSX (3d Cir.1993)). scope Vazquez Friedberg, Corp., within the F.3d 1413-14 (1994), A.2d 300 Pa.Super. Under the Federal Rules of which when the cause of recognized that Procedure, Civil plaintiff is entitled to underlying action a loss of consortium once; amend claim may grant courts subject discovery claim is to the tolled subsequent justice amendments “when so rule, the statute of limitations for the loss 15(a). requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. While this of consortium claim is also tolled. See id. requires Rule also that leave to amend inju- at In Vazquez, although 301-02. the “freely given,” should be a district court ry that caused her husband’s cancer oc- deny has the discretion to this if it request marriage, curred their the court before (1) apparent is from the record that the wife assert a of permitted the to loss con- moving party has demonstrated undue de they sortium claim because the cancer that (2) lay, dilatory or motives, bad faith the after marriage, discovered their and not futile, amendment would be the injury, the initial the for was basis amendment would prejudice par the other that, claim. id. The Lakes See assert Davis, ty. 178, See Foman v. 371 U.S. harm is because the Elizabeth suffers 182, 227, (1962). 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d 222 children, inability to have the of loss con- aWhile District Court has lee substantial injury claim is on that sortium based rath- way deciding grant whether to leave to er than initial sterilization. amend, it type when refuses this of re disagree. though decision, We are toll- quest Even we without its justifying ing the statute of limitations Eliza- for action is “not an exercise of its discretion claims, Sprague beth’s federal bars an of still but abuse its discretion.” Id. Justin’s consortium claim on substantive note, As the Lakes the District Court’s sterilized, grounds. Once was October 1998 order offered no explanation she was unable to children. There have is their denying request, though even harm, no subsequent Vazquez, arising as Lakes filed their request for leave to Moreover, from initial injury. that even time, amend on At April general proposition under the more they Lakes alleged that had additional claim, the loss of consortium the un- like facts that them would enable to withstand rights claims, derlying federal civil should the defendants’ to motion dismiss. As we tolled, equitably argument the Lakes’ however, argument, learned at the Lakes also fails. Elizabeth and Justin were both did not with a supply District Court aware of Elizabeth’s sterilization in complaint, though draft amended even Therefore, marriage before their in 1994. they had several months between the time before, after, was discovered not Magistrate Judge his issued Re- marriage, their a which scenario under (filed port and Recommendation March Sprague precludes suit. 1998) and when the District Court issued (filed 1998) order during

its October Instead, Denial Leave V. of of which to one. draft the Lakes Complaint Amend until chose to wait the District is- Court its order. sued inquiry Our final is whether delay, the District Court have Despite should allowed the their the Lakes to complaint urge Lakes’ motion amend their a now tous reverse the District Court’s second time remand in Lake I. following decision as an abuse of its discretion be We review District Court’s decision to cause the District order failed to Court’s deny request explain the Lakes’ it their why request amend denied Burlington justification abuse of discretion. In re for a providing amend. Not a amend, Factory Litig., Coat Sec. F.3d denial leave does (7th Auburn, 27 F.3d City v. an abuse automatically constitute provide Cir.1994) the failure (noting that rationale court’s long as as discretion complaint demon- amended proposed on record from the apparent readily faith). or bad diligence al., Moore, lack strates et Wm. 3 James appeal. Dis- give Moreover, are inclined 15- at 15.14[2] Practice Federal Moore’s when, discretion broader even Court trict City v. ed.1999), Pallottino (3d citing already granted here, court has (10th Cir. Rancho, F.3d Rio to amend opportunity party an requesting provide 1994) court failed (noting that See, Programs, e.g., DCD complaint. only harm its but for denial reason express n. 3 record). F.2d Leighton, 833 Ltd. from apparent error less Cir.1987). (9th local District Court Moreover, some plaintiff require in our Circuit rules VI. Conclusion amended a draft District give reasons, va- we will foregoing For the pro the can review that it complaint so dismissing order the District Court’s cate “jus whether to determine changes posed re- we will claims and federal Elizabeth’s plaintiffs grant to the court requires” tice for Court the District to the case mand Cindrich, al., 1 et Federal See request. this with consistent proceedings further Circuit Trial —3d Procedure Civil Before of dismissal affirm the willWe opinion. 12(h) Rule (1996) (discussing Local 8:285 claims, as state Elizabeth’s Jersey). Obvi New of District Court claim. of consortium loss as Justin’s well the complaint, draft this without ously, the District Court’s affirm we will Finally, the merits evaluate cannot District to request Lakes’ deny the to decision Here, we as stated request. plaintiffs’ of a complaint. their amend the Dis give to above, failed plaintiff the to review. complaint a draft trict Court and SLOVITER, concurring part in to upon which nothing Thus, had the court part. dissenting the Consequently, its discretion. exercise Elizabeth justifi majority that findings or of with agree lack I Court’s District to of leave time-barred its denial law claims are make not state do Lake’s cation limitations although such state of two-year statute improper, amend under that, under review more our time and have made at the relevant would effect ment time, the City Rolo v. Invest that effect at law in straightforward. Pennsylvania 644, Trust, F.3d for either toll did not limitations ing Liquidating Co. statute Cir.1998) (3d agree District (upholding I also incompetence. minority or despite amend concluding leave analysis denial of Judge Court’s Roth’s with justify findings not specific factual does mental retardation absence Del. River Joint denial); Kelly v. claim preserving ing a basis provide Cir.1951) (3d 93, 95 Comm’n, F.2d statute Pennsylvania’s under refusal summary harsh, court’s state (affirming lower may appear that, it while given claim any to a relief amendment not afford permit discovery rule does awith Therefore, join court provide I failure plaintiffs conclusion.1 from complaint). majority in amended proposed entered judgment respects. those fail Lakes’ conclude We agree I However, because precisely it is complaint amended a draft provide ure Pennsyl- application majority’s the with on which basis adequate an be barring of limitations vania’s request. deny plaintiffs could court claim tort Pennsylvania Lake’s 655; Harris Rolo, at accord 155 F.3d their request to amend deny the Lakes’ sion majority’s affirmance agree with I also complaint. con- loss of Justin Lake’s the dismissal deci- Court’s District claim and the sortium I respectfully disagree din, with the ma- the Court held that a federal court jority’s not decision the then- apply applying a state statute of limitations applicable tolling rules to bar should give effect as well to the state’s Lake’s federal claim filed provision under U.S.C. for tolling that statute of limita- 1985(3). §§ 1983 and I believe that tions. 490 U.S. at 109 S.Ct. 1998. Supreme Court’s decisions in Wilson v. The Court repeated its earlier statement Garcia, 471 U.S. Wilson, S.Ct. 85 in U.S. at 269 n. 105 S.Ct. (1985), Straub, L.Ed.2d 254 and Hardin virtually “[i]n all statutes of 490 U.S. 109 S.Ct. 104 L.Ed.2d limitations the chronological length of the (1989), dictate otherwise. period limitation is interrelated with provi- sions regarding tolling, revival, ques- Wilson, the Court undertook to re- tions of application.” (quoting Johnson v. varying solve the interpretations by the Railway Inc., Express Agency, 421 U.S. federal of appeals courts regarding 454, 464, 95 S.Ct. 44 L.Ed.2d 295 appropriate state statute of limitations to added)). (emphasis actions, to civil applied a conflict created because the Rights Civil Act does I am concerned that the holding of the specific include a statute of majority would detract from the very cer- governing actions brought §§ 1983 tainty the Court sought Thus, Wilson. and 1985. The Court noted that because Hardin, under Wilson and to determine no suitable rule exists, § in- limitations, the statute of one need only structs that federal courts should select examine the applicable personal in- state’s “the most appropriate” “the most analo- juries statute of limitations and determine gous” state statute of to apply limitations whether that state permit would tolling § to the 1983 claim as long as it is not under those circumstances. Under inconsistent with the Constitution and majority’s rule, laws even though state However, of United States. because of would permitted not have tolling under its the numerous topics and diverse and sub- limitations, statute of tolling may be per- topics encompassed within the constitu- if, § mitted in a 1983 suit in the court’s tional alleged claims § view, “[a]l- tolling comport would with the un- § most every 1983 claim can favorably be derlying purposes of the rights civil stat- analogized to than one more of ancient ute. Not only is this inconsistent with the action, common-law forms of of each which important goals of uniformity and certain-

may governed be by a different ty statute of in application of the statute of limita- Wilson, limitations.” 272-73, 471 U.S. at tions by established the Supreme Court 105 S.Ct. 1938. The Court opined that it but is also inconsistent with the Court’s Congress not would have sanctioned an reliance on the state to determine whether interpretation of the statute that would tolling and when permitted. should be lead to applying different Johnson, statutes of limi- 421 U.S. at 95 S.Ct. 1716 (“In § tations to the various arising a state borrowing period of limitation in the same state. After considering the application to a action, federal cause of issue, the Court adopted the “characteriza- federal court relying is on the State’s tion of all 1983 actions involving limit, wisdom in setting a exceptions personal claims for injuries.” thereto, Id. at on the prosecution of a closely 105 S.Ct. 1938. claim.”). analogous

The Court selected one Wilson, statute of limita- the Court reasoned that tort tions to be applied for this purpose actions major part constitute of the vol- minimize, order to if eliminate, not “the ume of litigation civil courts, the state conflict, confusion, and uncertainty con- and concluded that: “It is most unlikely cerning the appropriate of statute limita- period of applicable apply tions to this most important, was, such claims be, ever or ever would ubiquitous, rights civil statute.” Id. at fixed in a that way would discriminate 266, 105 Thereafter, S.Ct. 1938. in Har- against claims, federal or be inconsistent respect.” any law in federal

with Accordingly, 279, 105 S.Ct. at .S.U injuries the state’s of application risk “minimizes of limitations statute of limita- of a state the choice the federal fairly serve not

tions would Id. Penn- 1983.” vindicated

interests tolling for ultimately did allow sylvania majority however, the disability; a federal allow court, federal whenever action be tolling should

state, determines

applied. holding is majority’s of

The effect un- actions damage possibility

open against individuals Rights Act Civil

der the at the event after years than

more with again inconsistent This issue. al- with expressed concern Court’s Wilsmi be action cause lowing time,” noting any distance

“brought at cannot fact “[j]ust determinations when, passage of the because made fad- have

time, of witnesses the memories 271, 105 at Id. is lost.” ed or evidence omitted). (quotation S.Ct. empathy I

Although appreciate of the portion underlies

Lake set decision, the reasons

majority’s to dissent. compelled I feel

forth Appellant, BRUMFIELD,

P. Brian Shadday; SANDERS; Michelle

Sherri Huff; Derr-Blakeney; M. Jane Brenda Meyers; of Amer United States

Carla

ica.

No. 00-3275. Appeals, States

United

Third Circuit. 6, 2000.

Argued Oct. 14, 2000.

Filed Nov.

Case Details

Case Name: Lake v. Arnold

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Nov 7, 2000

Citation: 232 F.3d 360

Docket Number: 98-3558

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.