Statute of Limitations

Statute of limitations is the legal time limit within which a lawsuit must be filed. If a claim is not filed within this period, it is typically barred, meaning the court will dismiss it.

Oklahoma follows a two-year statute of limitations for 42 USC § 1983 claims. 

"In a § 1983 action, state law governs issues regarding the statute of limitations and tolling, although federal law governs the determination of when a § 1983 action accrues."); In a § 1983 action, state law governs issues regarding the statute of limitations and tolling, although federal law governs the determination of when a § 1983 action accrues [Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep't, 195 F.3d 553, 557 (10th Cir. 1999)]. 

Tolling the statute of limitations means temporarily pausing or extending the time limit for filing a lawsuit. This allows a plaintiff to file a claim even after the standard deadline has passed.

Common Reasons for Tolling:

Discovery Rule – The clock starts when the plaintiff reasonably discovers the injury (Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007)).

Minority or Legal Incapacity – If the plaintiff is a minor or mentally incapacitated, the statute may not begin until they reach legal capacity.

Fraudulent Concealment – If the defendant actively hid the wrongdoing, the clock may be paused until discovery.

Pending Criminal or Administrative Proceedings – Some claims may be tolled while related cases are resolved.

Equitable Tolling – Courts may allow extra time if extraordinary circumstances prevented filing.

Considerations for Tolling Due Process Claims Under § 1983:

Delay – If the claim would invalidate a conviction, the clock doesn’t start until the conviction is overturned [Heck v. Humphrey].

Equitable Tolling for Suppression of Evidence – If the government hides key facts (e.g., Brady violations), the statute of limitations is paused [McDonough v. Smith].

Ongoing Conspiracies & Continuing Violations – If the due process violation continues over time, accrual may be delayed until the final act [Robinson v. Daley, 302 F. App’x 671 (10th Cir. 2008)].

Fraudulent Concealment – If officials actively cover up the violation, courts may toll the statute of limitations.

SCOTUS Cases

• Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389 (2007) "the statute of limitations begins to run when the alleged false imprisonment ends." Since false imprisonment is detention without legal process, the Court ruled, the false imprisonment ends when legal processes begin. At that point, the clock begins to run on the time limit for filing a false imprisonment claim. 

Holding: A § 1983 claim generally accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action. However, tolling may apply if the plaintiff was prevented from discovering the claim due to state-created barriers.

Application: In cases of delayed discovery of exculpatory evidence or official suppression of evidence, the statute of limitations may be tolled.

• In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that a 1983 action should not be used to challenge the validity of a criminal judgment. If the alleged civil rights violation would render a conviction, sentence invalid, then it should be raised either as part of the criminal case or appeal or through habeas corpus. The court in Heck held that this action, an action to recover damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, accrues when the conviction is set aside. 

• McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 1 (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim alleging fabrication of evidence begins to run when the criminal proceedings end in the plaintiff's favor, not when the defendant first becomes aware of the fabricated evidence. 

10th Circuit Cases

• Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) – The Tenth Circuit reaffirmed that § 1983 claims are governed by the personal injury statute of limitations of the forum state, which in Oklahoma is two years under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(A)(3).

• Alexander v. Oklahoma, 382 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2004) – Rejected the application of the continuing violation doctrine in § 1983 cases, stating that discrete unconstitutional acts, even if part of a pattern, must be challenged within the applicable statute of limitations.

• Varnell v. Dora Consol. Sch. Dist., 756 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2014) – Clarified that the continuing violation doctrine is generally not applicable to § 1983 claims, except in limited circumstances where ongoing unlawful conduct prevents the claim from accruing.

• Roberts v. Barreras, 484 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2007) – Held that the statute of limitations may be tolled in cases of fraudulent concealment, where defendants take active steps to prevent a plaintiff from discovering the constitutional violation.