Doe v. Sargeant et al
OPINION AND ORDER: Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 28 . Signed on 8/15/2017 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Copy mailed to plaintiff) (cp) Modified on 8/15/2017 to add the word Opinion to the docket text(cp).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOHN DOE, an individual proceeding under
Case No. 6:16-cv-00517-MC
OPINION & ORDER
JO ANN SARGEANT, an individual,
DEBRA EVANS, an individual, RICHARD
HILL, an individual,
Plaintiff brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Jo Ann Sargeant,
Debra Evans, and Richard Hill in their individual capacities for alleged sexual abuse while
plaintiff was housed at MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility in 1992. Plaintiff brought a state
court action, based on the same allegations of abuse, against Jo Ann Sargeant and the facility.
Defendants here, all of whom worked at MacLaren, moved for summary judgment on statute of
While the parties briefed the motions here, the state court granted summary judgment
against plaintiff on statute of limitations grounds. See Jan. 13, 2017 Order, Case No.
16CV02710. Specifically, the state court concluded, “Plaintiff knew or should have known of the
harm, causation, and tortious conduct allegedly caused by Defendants while housed at MacLaren
in 1992. Plaintiff’s discovery of his injuries thus occurred well beyond ten years ago. As such,
Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred.” Id. At a telephone conference following the state court
judgment, plaintiff, now proceeding pro se, admitted he did not challenge the state court’s
preclusive effect on this action and stated he would dismiss this action.
Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not contain a statute of limitations, district courts adopt
the closest analogous statute of limitations from state law. Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134,
1136 (9th Cir. 2002). In Oregon, as § 1983 claims are most closely analogous to personal injury
actions, the relevant statute of limitations is two years. Id.; O.R.S. § 12.110. Oregon and the
Ninth Circuit generally espouse that the Discovery Rule governs the start of the tolling period for
a statute of limitations. T.R. v. Boy Scouts of Am., 344 Or. 282, 292 (2008); Golden Gate Hotel
Ass’n v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 18 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1994). This rule states that as
soon as the plaintiff is aware, or should reasonably be aware, that an injury occurred, and knew
or should have known that the defendant caused the injury, the statute of limitations period
begins to run. T.R., 344 Or. at 291 – 92.
As noted, the state court concluded plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the harm
stemming from the abuse back in 1992. Therefore, collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s claim here.
Collateral estoppel prevents re-litigation of an issue of fact or law under a new cause of
action that has already been decided in a prior court proceeding involving a party from the first
case. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). “Issue preclusion arises in a subsequent
proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination
in a prior proceeding.” Nelson v. Emerald People’s Util. Dist., 318 Or. 99, 103 (1993). Issue
preclusion applies when the following five requirements are met: (1) the issue in the two
proceedings is identical; (2) the issue was litigated and was essential to the outcome of the prior
proceeding; (3) the party to be precluded has had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the
issue; (4) the party to be precluded was party to or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding;
and (5) the prior proceeding was of the kind that this Court will give preclusive effect to. Id. at
104. The Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, requires federal courts to give state court
judgments the same preclusive effect that the law of the state where the judgment was rendered
would give. Gonzales v. California Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2014).
The issue of when plaintiff knew or should have known of the harm from the alleged
sexual abuse is identical in both cases. Plaintiff had a fair opportunity to be heard on that issue in
state court and the issue was in fact essential to the outcome there. The state court entered
judgment and the time to appeal has passed. Therefore, I conclude plaintiff’s claims here are
barred by collateral estoppel. Plaintiff’s brought this 1983 claim well past the two year limitation
from the date he knew or should have known of the harm. Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 28, is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 15th day of August, 2017.
/s/ Michael McShane
United States District Judge
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?