Source: cases/42usc1983/f3d-935-738-bird-v-hawaii.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_935/0738_01/index.html
Although Bird's injuries resulting from the 2007 act of placing her on the CCAR continue to the present day, continuing effect is insufficient to constitute a continuing violation.
Because Bird's complaint is not subject to any exception from the normal discovery rule of accrual, we agree that Bird's claim accrued no later than May 2013, when Bird threatened to sue DHS if she was not removed from the CCAR.
Accordingly, her suit, filed in July 2015, was outside the two-year statute of limitations.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/935/0738-01 name Bird v. Hawaii cite 935 F.3d 738 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit date 2019-08-23 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_935/0738_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl sha1=4646be96a1b1db18c5558eea2c13f2c477221b1b chars=49166 opinion pc : per-curiam @0..36622 controlling opinion conc : concurrence by Bybee @36623..49166 party state : State of Hawai'i, its Department of Human Services and state officials party bird : Courtney Bird count dp : procedural due process challenge to listing on the Central Child Abuse Registry without notice or hearing theory accrual : federal discovery rule of accrual; no exception for facial challenges to an ongoing scheme; continuing-violations doctrine inapplicable to an individualized claim law 42usc1983 role applied posture civil; mother listed on Hawai'i's child abuse registry in 2007 without notice sued the State, DHS and officials under ยง 1983 (due process) in July 2015; district court raised limitations sua sponte and granted summary judgment for defendants as untimely; CA9 affirmed result claimant-lost defense statute-of-limitations : satisfied [law] route _whole pattern registry listing discovered in 2012, suit threatened in May 2013, complaint filed July 2015 under a two-year borrowed period; ongoing effects of the listing are not a continuing violation party state count dp theory accrual fact @11588..11736 [supports] | In a letter dated May 14, 2013, Bird's attorney indicated to DHS that Bird would "proceed with litigation" if she was not removed from the registry. fact @999..1143 [supports] | Bird did not file suit, however, until July 20, 2015-more than two years after her extensive communications with DHS and previous threat to sue. fact @33690..33814 [supports] | The only instance Bird has identified where she sought and was denied a post-deprivation hearing occurred prior to May 2013. fact @8453..8636 [cuts-against] | Nevertheless, because DHS did not conclude that its initial assessment was "frivolous or in bad faith," DHS took no action and Bird remained on the CCAR as a "confirmed" child abuser. rule @32523..32703 | Although Bird's injuries resulting from the 2007 act of placing her on the CCAR continue to the present day, continuing effect is insufficient to constitute a continuing violation. held @1290..1518 | Because Bird's complaint is not subject to any exception from the normal discovery rule of accrual, we agree that Bird's claim accrued no later than May 2013, when Bird threatened to sue DHS if she was not removed from the CCAR. held @34122..34213 | Accordingly, her suit, filed in July 2015, was outside the two-year statute of limitations. gloss Section 1983 borrows Hawai'i's two-year personal-injury period; accrual is governed by the federal discovery rule; the panel declines to exempt facial challenges to an ongoing statutory scheme and holds the continuing-violations doctrine inapplicable to an individualized due process claim. ? route: the contested sub-question is ACCRUAL (discovery rule, continuing violation, facial-challenge exception); the menu has only borrowed-state-period and relation-back element deprivation.procedural-due-process : not-reached party bird count dp gloss Merits of the due process claim not reached by the per curiam opinion because the action was time-barred (Judge Bybee's concurrence would find a plain due process violation; not controlling).