Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parker v. Bourdon

United States District Court, D. Utah

August 19, 2019

FRANK PARKER, Plaintiff,
v.
KRISTIE BOURDON, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Ted Stewart United States District Judge

         On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint and Amended Complaint. This case was subsequently referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A Third Amended Complaint was filed on November 13, 2018. Plaintiff then filed various motions. On January 9, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

         On July 5, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted and the remaining motions be denied. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection and has filed a Supplemental Memorandum. Defendants have filed their Response.

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party has 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation to file an objection. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. As Plaintiff has objected, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation de novo.[1]

In order to conduct a de novo review a court “should make an independent determination of the issues . . .; [it] ‘is not to give any special weight to the [prior] determination' . . . .” “The district judge is free to follow [a magistrate judge's recommendation] or wholly to ignore it, or, if he is not satisfied, he may conduct the review in whole or in part anew.”[2]

         II. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff brings a number of claims. The majority of his claims stem from the requirement that he register as a sex offender as a result of his 2004 conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. Plaintiff also complains about an arrest that occurred in February 2008.[3] Defendants argued, and the Magistrate Judge agreed, that these claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the Utah Department of Corrections was not a person under § 1983 and subject to dismissal.

         Plaintiff now argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled. Plaintiff also contests the dismissal of the Department of Corrections.

         A. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

         “For section 1983 actions, state law determines the appropriate statute of limitations and accompanying tolling provisions.”[4] Utah's four-year residual statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims, “which accrue on the date of the constitutional violation.”[5] “Claims arising out of police actions toward a criminal suspect, such as arrest, interrogation, or search and seizure, are presumed to have accrued when the actions actually occur.”[6]

         With respect to the 2008 arrest, any claim related to that arrest accrued on that date and the statute of limitations expired in 2012. Plaintiff did not bring this action until 2018. Therefore, that claim is untimely and there is no basis for tolling.

         Turning to Plaintiff's claims related to the sex offender registration requirement, Plaintiff was informed of the requirement to register as a sex offender by March 2007, at the latest. Plaintiff did not bring this action for over a decade after he learned of his obligation. Despite this, Plaintiff argues that his claims should be permitted to proceed under the continuing violation doctrine because his obligation to register continued until 2018.

         “Assuming the continuing violation doctrine applies to § 1983 claims, the doctrine is triggered ‘by continual unlawful acts, not by continual ill effects from the original violation.'”[7]“[A] plaintiff may not use the continuing violation theory to challenge discrete actions that occurred ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.