Mulligan v. Hazard Et Al.

Background

This case involves a dispute about how long people have to bring federal civil-rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Wilson v. Garcia the Court said those lawsuits should be treated like personal injury claims when choosing a state statute of limitations. After Wilson, federal appeals courts disagreed about whether that new rule should apply retroactively and which state time limit to borrow when more than one applies.

Reasoning

The Court did not take the case and denied the petition for review, leaving the differing appeals-court rules in place. The Sixth Circuit had applied Wilson retroactively without qualification. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits reached similar results. Other circuits, including the Ninth and Tenth, limited Wilson’s effect and awarded only prospective relief when retroactive application would shorten a deadline. The Third and Eighth Circuits applied Wilson retroactively in some situations, but it is unclear whether those holdings are universal. Courts also disagree when multiple state deadlines exist: the Tenth Circuit chose a state’s residual deadline rather than an intentional-tort deadline, while the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits select the intentional-tort statute.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, the split among the circuits remains. Plaintiffs and lawyers across different regions face uncertainty about filing deadlines for § 1983 claims and which state deadline will control. Some claims might be barred sooner in some circuits than in others, depending on how each appeals court applies Wilson.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented from the denial and would have granted review to resolve the clear conflicts among the circuits.