The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the dismissal of a prisoner civil rights lawsuit in Vasquez-Garcia v. Centurion, LLC, holding the district court improperly resolved a statute of limitations defense at the pleading stage. The panel found that plaintiff Sandra Vasquez-Garcia plausibly alleged prison officials and medical contractors were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs during her incarceration in New Mexico, and that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was premature.
Writing for the court, Judge Federico emphasized statute-of-limitations defenses present a “steep hill” on a motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs are not required to plead around affirmative defenses. The court held that the accrual of a § 1983 deliberate indifference claim depends not only on knowledge of a medical injury but also on when the plaintiff knew or could have known facts supporting the defendants’ subjective deliberate indifference. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the panel concluded it was plausible that Vasquez-Garcia did not have that knowledge until after her release in May 2021, placing her 2024 complaint within the three-year limitations period.
The court also clarified the continuing violations doctrine applies in § 1983 cases and may extend to deliberate indifference claims involving ongoing failures to treat chronic conditions. Because Vasquez-Garcia alleged a continuous course of inadequate care lasting through the end of her incarceration, the doctrine provided an alternative basis for timeliness at the pleading stage. The 10th Circuit further held the district court erred in dismissing claims against unserved defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and it remanded the case for further proceedings.
Read the full opinion.