/

\ I \ kL 5 I T?S ~ .......... •z= ...... e... l & f£7& b fIzz_ ..,. --------------------------

/~ CA-Ia .~ -4D ~c:v ~

/1::::: ~ -0L~ ~ 4 'lL ,H_

Zf/61- 1-o ~ YD ~ rvlf~ ~. PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM

· C /-1-; o ~~ . , ~ ,ff /Y'D Sept. 24, 1984 Conference '-?~ ~1 ~/:;-~ List 17, Sheet 2~~ ~ ~Cl._,;.S~~

~/1/2--f~~, C/-7- ; D ~ No. 83-2146 t--1- ~ ~ JLo ~~~~ ~~ WILSON {police ~ Cert to CAlO (Se.th, Holloway,}~

officer), et al. _, ~ 1 , ,~ McWiLliams, Ba.rrett, Doy le, ~ '~· McKay, L9gan, Seymou r ) (en

v. bane)

GARCIA (§1983 plaintiff) Federal/Civil Timely

1. SUMMARY: Petrs allege that CAlO improperly failed

to adopt the limitations period for §1983 actions previously held ....___________ applicable by a state supreme court to such actions brought in

state court.

r ·... a+ 4 I o~S -1;; ~"net w /,..jt;, do w; JL ft. •s o"e. I ·~ S« re, -11. ... ~ l, -/(." -t ~ ~J h-e- $er;"'~~;-eiJTolv"sL:e ~cLo~l D.·sfr;c_f v. {(l'\"l L

1 No . 82 -1!'11

wo"'IJ 6e~\t-laffrorr,'tlte. ~at case co '-'\ce r"'> w~e ~e r ~"' a"'ttlo,ok~

.. '

2. FACTS AND DECISIONS BELOW: Resp brought this §1983

action alleging that he had been unlawfully beaten and sprayed

with tear gas. Resp filed his lawsuit more than two years after

the incident allegedly occurred. Petrs moved to dismiss on the v

grounds that the two year statute of limitations contained in the

New Mexico Tort Claims Act (NMTCA), N.M. Stat. §41-4-lS(A),

barred resp's action.

The DC (D.N.M., Bratton) noted that this Court has not pro-

vided clear guidelines to determine the appropriate state limita­~

tions period for §1983 actions and that the CAs have adopted

varying approaches. The DC acknowledged that the NMTCA provides

a cause of action against law enforcement officers for the "de-

privation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws of the United States." N.M. Stat. §41-4-t/

12. Nonetheless, the DC found that actions under the NMTCA are

"separate and apart" from §1983 actions and that the New Mexico

legislature did not intend the NMTCA limitations period to apply

to §1983 actions. Although the New Mexico Supreme Court had pre-

viously held that the two year limitations period contained in

the NMTCA applied to §1983 actions brought against police offi-

cers, the DC disagreed and concluded that §1983 actions are best

characterized as actions based on a statute. Because there is no

specific New Mexico statute of limitations governing §1983 ac-

tions or actions based on a statute, the DC adopted the residual

four year limitations period contained in N.M. Stat •. 37-1-4.

The DC certified the issue for interlocutory appeal .

. ~

CAlO 's en bane opinion notes that the lower courts have I

adopted widely varying methods for selecting the appropriate

state limitations period for §1983 actions, and that this Court

vu~ ~·~ been singularly unhelpful in providing guidance on this im­

portant issue of federal law." One basic disagreement among the

CAs is whether the limitations period should be selected based on

the facts of the particular §1983 action or instead on a charac-

ter i za t ion of the nature of § 19 83 act ions in general. Compare

Aitchison v. Raffiani, 708 F.2d 96, 101 (CA3 1983) (comparing

particular §1983 claim to factually similar state actions) , and

McClam v. Barry, 697 F.2d 366, 374 (CADC 1983) (same conclusion

with respect to Bivens action), with Pauk v. Board of Trustees,

6 54 F . 2 d 8 56 , 8 6 6 ( CA 2 19 81 ) , c e r t • denied , 4 55 U . S • 1 0 0 0 ( 19 8 2 )

(characterizing all §1983 claims as actions on a statute). Among

courts that select limitations periods based on a general charac-

terization of §1983 actions, there is disagreement whether such

actions are based on a statute or instead on injury to personal

rights. Compare Pauk, supra, with McCausland v. Mason County

Board of Education, 649 F.2d 278, 279 (CA4), cert. denied, 454

U.S. 1098 (1981) (§1983 action controlled by limitations period

for personal injuries). Finally, there is disagreement about the

circumstances in which a federal court may disregard a state lim-

itations statute expressly applicable to §1983 actions. Compare

Johnson v. Davis, 582 F.2d 1316, 1318-19 (CA4 1978) (disregarding

state statute provided shorter limitations period for §1983 ac-

tions than for personal injury actions), with Kosikowski v.

Bourne, 659 F.2d 105, 107 (CA9 1981) (adopting state statute ex-

pressly made applicable to §1983 actions in state ' court). I

After reviewing the approaches of other CAs, CAlO concluded

that all §1983 claims should be characterized as actions for in­----------r

jury to personal rights for statute of limitations purposes. The

approach that seeks to identify a state action analogous to the

particular §1983 claim is unacceptable, CAlO concluded, because

there are important differences between civil rights actions and

state causes of action. Moreover, this approach creates uncer-

tainty and a lack of uniformity because more than one state cause

of action arguably is analogous to any §1983 claim. CAlO specif-

ically refused to follow CA9's decision in Kosikowski, observing

that state limitations periods are often motivated by a desire to

limit liability rather than concern for §1983's remedial pur-

poses. CAlO also refused to follow CA2's decision in Pauk which

characterized § 198 3 claims as act ions on a statute. Section

1983, CAlO argued, does not itself grant substantive rights. Be-

cause §1983 provides a remedy for the deprivation of rights se-

cured by the Constitution or federal law, CAlO concluded that

every §1983 claim is in essence an action for injury to personal

rights.

CAlO observed in a footnote that the New Mexico Supreme

Court held in DeVargas v. New Mexico, 97 N.M. 563, 642 P.2d 166

(1982), that the two year limitations period in the NMTCA governs

§1983 claims against state police officers in state court. With­

out elaboration, CAlO stated that "[b]ecause the conclusion

reached in DeVargas is at variance with our analysis in this

case, we do not adopt it." Instead, CAlO found that New Mexico's I

three-year limitations period for act ions for ~ personal injury

applied and resp's action was therefore timely.

3. CONTENTIONS: Petrs contend that CAlO's approach of-

fends principles of federalism and creates an irreconciable con-

flict between the state and federal courts concerning the appro-

priate limitations period for §1983 actions against law enforce-

ment officers in New Mexico. Moreover, CAlO's decision conflicts

with cases in other CAs holding that the limitations period ap-

plicable to §1983 actions brought in state court should also

apply to actions brought in federal court unless that period is

too short or conflicts with the Constitution or federal law. Fi-

nally, petrs argue that this Court should clarify the consider-

ations relevant to identifying the state statute of limitations

applicable to §1983 actions.

Resp maintains that CAlO's decision is correct and that this

Court should allow other CAs an opportunity to consider the mer-

its of CAlO's approach. CAlO properly refused to apply the NMTCA

limitations period, because suits under the NMTCA are not analo-

gous to §1983 actions. The NMTCA limitations period is incon-

sistent with federal law because it discriminates against federal

claims, and notice provisions in the NMTCA are unreasonably

short.

4. DISCUSSION: This Court has granted cert in Spring-

field Township School Dist. v. Knoll, No. 82-1889, to review

CA3's holding that a six month limitations period for state ac-I

tions against government officials would not apply to a §1983

action. Although CA3 acknowledged that if the plaintiff had

brought a state law action, it would have been subject to the six

month limitation, the court held that this period was inconsist-

ent with the policy of §1983 and instead applied the state's om-

nibus six year statute of limitations. Because Knoll apparently

will elaborate on Burnett v. Grattan, No. 83-264 (June 27, 1984),

and address the circumstances in which a federal court may disre-

gard the 1 imitations period for analogous state act ions, I be-

lieve that at a minimum the Court should hold this case. Knoll

and this case differ, of course, insofar as here CAlO chose to

disregard not the limitations period for an analogous action, but

instead the period that would apply had the same §1983 action

been brought in state court. Notwithstanding the contentions of

resp, neither the district court nor CAlO found that application

of New Mexico's two-year limitations period to §1983 actions

would be inconsistent with the Constitution or federal law.

Moreover, I think there are good reasons for granting plena-

ry review in this case. Both CAlO and petrs accurately describe

the disagreement among the CAs concerning the proper approach for

identifying the relevant limitations period. The various CAs

have more or less staked out their positions, and the conflicts

will most likely persist absent resolution by this Court. The

volume of §1983 cases and the federalism concerns implicated by

the conflict between CAlO and the New Mexico Supreme Court also

suggest that the issues are of sufficient importance to warrant

review. This case would offer the Court an opportunity to clari-,1

fy an extremely confused area of the law relat~d to §1983 ac-

tions. Of course, the Court may prefer to proceed cautiously,

and Knoll may address or suggest the resolution of the issues

raised by this case.

I recommend hold.

There is a response.

August 4, 1984 Bales opn in petn

Court ....... Argued ........... ·. .................. . , 19

Submitted · · · . . ............ . . , 19 ...

-CERT.

"Voted on ................. . , 19 Assigned · · · ................. . , 19 Announced · · ·

83-2146 No .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 19 ...

WILSON

vs.

GARCIA

J URISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

J

~ /.2_/d--!-~ ~

wz_l-lv 5 ~t#-r~!~#~ v.

/{~.?z-;Yf1 M ERITS MOTION

ABSENT NOT VOTI NG HOLD FOR

G _,D N POST DIS AFF

Burger, Ch. J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . REv AF F

G D -

,,

li.prU. 5, 1985

83-?146 Wilson v. Gar~ia ·-------

~t th~ enrl of the next draft of vour opinion pleas~ ad~ that T took no part in the consi1eration or 1ecision of th~ ~hove case.

SincP-rely,

Just ice St(.!Vens

l.fp/ss

cc: ~he ~onference

·~ .• .. ·~-~:~· '-'j:

'"'

., 1.

CHAMBERS OF"

JUSTICE: SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

.fU¥ttW Ofourlltf l4t 'Jtnitth .ttait.e' JlM4ingbn, ~. Of. 2D?"~

April 5, 1985

No. 83-2146 Wilson v. Garcia

Dear John,

I plan to circulate a dissent in this case and plan to do so within a week or so.

Sincerely,

Justice Stevens

Copies to the Conference

< '

CHAMISEI'IS OF

JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL

.Suvrtmt Of01trt of tlrt ~b .i'tatts 11Jae!ringLm. ~. cq. 21lp'l-~

'I t(

April 8, 1985

Re: No. 83-2146-Wilson and Vigil v. Garcia

Dear John:

Please join me.

Sincerely,

Justice Stevens

cc: The Conference

' .. . ,

~·

CHAMI!IER& OF"

.JUSTICE w ... ..J. BRENNAN, .JR.

April 8, 1985

No. 83-2146

Wilson, et al. v. Garcia

Dear John,

I agree.

Sincerely,

Justice Stevens

Copies to the Conference

i ~

I I

.fu:prtmt <!fourt of tift~ .ftatt.e'

JIM~~. <If. 2ll.?~~

CHAMBERS 0 F"

.JUSTICE BYRON R . WHITE April 8, 1985

83-2146 - Wilson and Vigil v. Garcia

Dear John,

Please join me.

Sincerely yours,

Justice Stevens

Copies to the Conference

. . . '· .!

'•

CHAMeE:RS 01'"

.JUSTICE HARRY A . BLACKMUN

~tm.t Qionri of tlrt ~b .,Bhtttg

Jrulfingto:n. ~. QI. 21l.;i,.~

Re: No. 83-2146, Wilson v. Garcia

Dear John:

Please join me.

Sincerely,

j/~ ............. _____ ........_

Justice Stevens

cc: The Conference

I! "I

' ' April 8, 1985

CHAMI!IE:RS OF

JUSTICE WILLIAM H . REHNQUIST

.tttFtntt <!ftrnrlltf tlrt ~tb ,jtzdts­

.. ulfhtg~ ~. <If. 2llbi»-~

April 10, 1985

Re: No. 83-2146 Wilspn v. Garcia

Dear John,

Please join me.

Sincerely,/.

ltl

Justice Stevens

cc: The Conference

CHAMI5ERS OF"

.fltpftntt <!fonrt of tift~~ .ftatt• Jhu~lfinghtn. ~. Of. 2llp~~

THECHIEFJUSTICE April 10, 1985

Re: 83-2146 - Wilson v. Garcia

Dear John,

I join.

Justice Stevens

Copies to the Conference

r 1

I Regards, !

83-2146 Wilson v. Garcia

' '

~ ,.

LFP out - letter 4/5/85 JPS for the Court 1/18/85

lst draft 4/5/85 2nd draft 4/15/85

Joined by TM 4/8/85 WJB 4/8/85 BRW 4/8/85 HAB 4/8/85 WHR 4/10/85 CJ 4/11/85

SOC will dissent 4/5/85 lst draft 4/11/85 2nd draft 4/15/85

'·

I ,,.

'