Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court considered when a claim under 42 USC section 1983 accrues for statute-of-limitations purposes. It held that the claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know both of the injury and the defendant's role in causing it. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the trial court's judgment, and remanded for reconsideration under that accrual standard.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- When does a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim accrue under federal law for purposes of applying the forum state's personal-injury statute of limitations?
- Does a § 1983 claim accrue when the plaintiff knows or should know only of the injury, or must the plaintiff also know or reasonably should know the defendant's role in causing the injury?
Holdings
- A § 1983 action accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of both the injury and the defendant's role in causing the injury.
- The trial court applied an incorrect accrual rule by treating the claim as accruing when plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury alone, necessarily at the time of the abuse.
Key quotations
“We hold that an action under section 1983 accrues when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury and the defendant's role in causing the injury.” (364 Or. at 303-04)
“In our view, a rule that requires a plaintiff to bring a claim without any regard for the plaintiff's knowledge of whom to sue is neither functional nor flexible.” (364 Or. at 303)
Factual background
In 1998, when plaintiff was 15 and housed at an Oregon Youth Authority facility, an OYA employee repeatedly sexually abused him. The employee threatened plaintiff with disbelief, loss of family visitation, and physical harm if he reported the abuse, and plaintiff did not report it before leaving OYA in 1999. Plaintiff later recalled the abuse in 2012, learned of the employee's criminal conduct, and subsequently learned information indicating that the OYA superintendent had played a role in enabling the abuse.
Procedural history
J. M. sued former Oregon Youth Authority superintendent Lawhead under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to the risk that an OYA employee would sexually abuse youths. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, concluding that the claim accrued when the abuse occurred in 1998 and was untimely. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that decision, reversed the trial court's judgment, and remanded for reconsideration under the correct accrual rule.
Remand instructions
The trial court must reconsider defendant's summary judgment motion under the rule that a § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of both the injury and the defendant's role in causing it, and must address any remaining arguments not previously reached.