This Week At The Ninth: Federal Accrual Rules And An Alaskan Land-Exchange

• Published date: 23 March 2022
• Subject Matter: Environment, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Environmental Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
• Author: Ms Lena H. Hughes and Zachary Fuchs

This week, the Ninth Circuit addresses whether the principles of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) apply to the accrual of federal civil rights claims against a university and considers the Department of Interior's authority to enter into a land-exchange agreement in rural Alaska.

BONELLI V. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY

The Court holds that neither Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) nor a Heck-like rule of delayed accrual applies to the determination of when the plaintiff's federal civil rights claims against his former university accrued.

Panel: Judges Gilman (6th Cir.), Bress, and VanDyke, with Judge Bress writing the opinion.

Key Highlight: "If a plaintiff has a 'complete and present cause of action,' his claim accrues under federal law . . . We cannot brush off that basic precept and elongate the limitations period on our own."

Background: On January 20, 2020, plaintiff sued his former university for violations of 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and other statutes for claims arising out on-campus incidents in February and July 2017 that led to an August 2017 disciplinary warning against him. Plaintiff claimed that the University's actions were racially discriminatory and caused him emotional distress and other injuries. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims untimely because they were brought more than two years after plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff appealed.

Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's claims were untimely. Those claims accrued when plaintiff was injured, which occurred, at the latest, by August 24, 2017 when the University issued its disciplinary warning. Plaintiff did not bring suit within two years of that date. Plaintiff argued that, under the principles set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), his claims did not accrue until August 29, 2018, when the University rescinded his disciplinary warning. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a ' 1983 cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. The Ninth Circuit found plaintiff's reliance on Heck misplaced because Heck relied on the hoary principle that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments. But as there was no conviction or confinement here, the Heck doctrine has no application. The Court also held that no Heck-like rule of delayed accrual should...