Sahoo et al v. Gleaton et al
Filing
103
ORDER denying 89 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/29/2018. (Sellers, N.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:16-CV-153-BO
RACHEL SAHOO and GOURAB SAHOO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMIE GLEATON, KITTY HART, RICHARD
HAYNER, SWEETLY SANDERS, UNKNOWN
JOHN DOE SUPERVISORS AND
POLICYMAKERS 1-10 and WAKE COUNTY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on defendant Wake County's motion to dismiss [DE 89].
The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, the motion is
DENIED.
BACKGROUND
From March 6, 2015 to May 22, 2015, plaintiffs lost custody of their three children
following a report by a WakeMed hospital radiologist that their five-month old child, who had
been intubated after his admission to the neonatal intensive care unit for breathing problems, had
subdural hematomas that could be consistent with shaking. Plaintiffs regained custody after an
evaluation by Duke pediatricians determined no abuse took place and the hematomas that existed
were a result of the intubation. Plaintiffs then brought the instant action, alleging that the
deprivation of their children gave rise to substantive due process claims, procedural due process
claims, and state negligence and recklessness claims. They originally filed suit against
defendants Jamie Gleaton and Kitty Hart. On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed additional claims,
including against defendant Wake County. Wake County has now moved to dismiss, arguing that
the claims were brought outside the three-year statute of limitations.
DISCUSSION
Claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 take their statute of limitations from the
state in which the claims arose. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007). Here in North
Carolina, personal injury torts have a three-year statute oflimitations. N.C.G.S. §1-52.
Wake County argues that because the period of time during which the alleged wrongful
conduct happened began on March 6, 2015, that is when the clock began to run. So, plaintiffs
had until March 6, 2018 to bring their suit, and because they did not do so until March 23, 2018,
the claim is time barred. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on multiple grounds, including arguing the
claims against Wake County relate back to the original lawsuit filed in 2016.
This Court finds that Wake County's motion to dismiss should be denied because
plaintiffs' causes of action did not fully accrue on March 6, 2015.
A statute oflimitations period begins to run when a cause of action accrues. 549 U.S. 384
at 388. A cause of action accrues "when a plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action."
Id. (internal citations omitted).
This case involves accusations of misconduct against several state employees over a
period of time that began on March 6, 2015 and continued into May 2015. Defendant argues that
because plaintiffs could have potentially brought a lawsuit only based on what they claim took
place on March 6, their cause of action accrued and the clock began to run. This is incorrect.
Plaintiffs' allegations continue into May. Their causes of action as alleged were not yet complete
on March 6. 1 Because of this, defendant's motion must be denied.
1
Defendant's own reply brief disputes factual allegations made by plaintiffs regarding events that occurred in May.
[DE 98 at 3].
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss [DE 89 is DENIED.
98]
SO ORDERED, this
M day of August, 2018.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?