Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01014/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lesa Adame
Appellee
Nicole Becht
Appellee
Dawn Canfield
Appellant
Cheryl Caplecha
Appellee
Does 1 through 10
Appellee
Douglas County
Appellee
Douglas County Department of Human Services
Appellee
Valerie Elson
Appellee
Sherry Hansen
Appellee
Kristine Johnson
Appellee
Tracy Mudget
Appellee
Patrick Sweeney
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

DAWN CANFIELD, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

DOUGLAS COUNTY, a public entity; 

DOUGLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF HUMAN SERVICES; VALERIE 

ELSON, individual and official capacity; 

LESA ADAME, individual and official 

capacity; CHERYL CAPLECHA, 

individual and official capacity; TRACY 

MUDGET, individual and official capacity; 

KRISTINE JOHNSON, individual and 

official capacity; NICOLE BECHT, 

individual and official capacity; PATRICK 

SWEENEY, individual and official 

capacity; SHERRY HANSEN, individual 

and official capacity; DOES 1 THROUGH 

10, inclusive, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 15-1014 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00461-KMT) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

September 29, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Dawn Canfield sued the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they 

had deprived her of her constitutional rights as a parent by presenting false testimony 

and by suppressing evidence during state juvenile-court proceedings, thereby causing 

her to lose custody of her children. Her second amended complaint (the Complaint) 

also included several related claims under Colorado law. The district court dismissed 

her federal claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim because they were 

untimely on their face.1

 It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her 

state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

 The Complaint sought damages from Douglas County, its Department of 

Human Services (DHS), and a number of social workers and others employed by 

Douglas County or the DHS. Because we are reviewing a dismissal on the pleadings, 

we set forth the facts as alleged in the Complaint. 

In 2010 Ms. Canfield applied for a temporary restraining order against her 

husband. This matter was set for hearing on September 10, 2010. Before the hearing 

the defendant social workers interviewed her husband, who made false statements 

about her, characterizing her as mentally unstable and a threat to her children. The 

social workers failed to investigate Mr. Canfield’s statements and improperly took 

them as true. 

 1

 The parties consented to entry of final judgment by a United States 

Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 2 
3 

 At the September 10 hearing Ms. Canfield was confronted by a DHS social 

worker who expressed concern about her mental health and the safety of her children. 

Either at that hearing or a later one (the Complaint is unclear) DHS social workers 

testified that Ms. Canfield was mentally unstable and recommended that her children 

be removed from her home and placed with her husband. In addition, the defendants 

initiated a dependency-and-neglect (D&N) proceeding on October 4, 2010. The 

social workers presented testimony and filed an assessment containing a false 

statement regarding Ms. Canfield’s prior conduct. The court ordered her to 

relinquish custody to her husband, and allowed her only supervised visitation. 

Over the course of a year and a half, DHS and its agents submitted false 

information and testimony to the court, presented false reports and findings 

concerning Ms. Canfield’s parenting abilities, coerced her into agreeing to a 

stipulated adjudication that adversely affected her ability to regain custody of her 

children, required her to undergo examinations with biased examiners, interfered 

with her therapy, and ignored or covered up Mr. Canfield’s inadequacies as a parent. 

Throughout the various proceedings, DHS agents promised Ms. Canfield that if she 

cooperated with DHS, her custodial rights would be restored. As a result of the 

defendants’ actions, the state court entered a final Order of Allocation of Parental 

Responsibilities on February 24, 2012, which awarded Mr. Canfield “sole 

decision-making and allocation of parental responsibilities,” Complaint, ¶ 51, and 

limited Ms. Canfield to supervised visitation in a professional facility. Ms. Canfield 

filed this action on February 21, 2014. 

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 3 
4 

DISCUSSION

 “We review de novo the dismissal of an action under Rule 12(b)(6) based on 

the statute of limitations.” Braxton v. Zavaras, 614 F.3d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 

2010). “We accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and 

view them in the light most favorable to the [plaintiff].” SEC v. Shields, 744 F.3d 

633, 640 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “While the statute of 

limitations is an affirmative defense, when the dates given in the complaint make 

clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished, the plaintiff has the burden of 

establishing a factual basis for tolling the statute.” Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., 

Inc., 627 F.2d 1036, 1041 n.4 (10th Cir. 1980). 

In § 1983 actions we apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for 

personal-injury claims, Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007), and generally 

apply the forum state’s tolling rules, id. at 394. Colorado, the forum state here, 

provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims. Colo. Rev. Stat. 

§ 13–80–102.2

 For the accrual date, however, we look to federal law. See Wallace, 

549 U.S. at 388. Under federal law, “[a] civil rights action accrues when facts that 

 2

 The district court applied Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102(1)(g), which provides 

a two-year statute of limitations for “[a]ll actions upon liability created by a federal 

statute where no period of limitations is provided in said federal statute.” But we 

rely on the residual statute of limitations in § 13-80-102(1)(i), which pertains to “[a]ll 

other actions of every kind for which no other period of limitations is provided.” See 

Blake v. Dickason, 997 F.2d 749, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1993) (adopting two-year 

residual limitations period in § 13-80-102(1)(i) for § 1983 actions); Arnold v. 

Duchesne Cty., 26 F.3d 982, 985 n.5 (10th Cir. 1994) (explaining that this court has 

applied Colorado’s residual statute of limitations, rather than its statute applicable to 

federal actions for which there is no limitations period, to § 1983 claims). 

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 4 
5 

would support a cause of action are or should be apparent.” Fratus v. DeLand, 49 

F.3d 673, 675 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We agree with the district court that Ms. Canfield’s substantive-due-process 

claims accrued in 2010, when her children were ordered removed from her custody, 

as she knew or should have known at that point that her right to familial association 

had been violated. Because Ms. Canfield did not file this action until February 21, 

2014, the statute of limitations barred her federal civil-rights claims. She makes 

several arguments to salvage her claims, but they are not persuasive. 

First, Ms. Canfield argues that her claims did not accrue until February 24, 

2012, when the state juvenile court entered its final order determining her parental 

rights.3

 We disagree. Her relevant injury became evident when her children were 

first ordered removed from her custody—the first loss of parental rights that she 

attributes, at least in part, to the defendants. Cf. Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 

1187-88, 1190, 1196 (10th Cir. 2014) (parents stated claim for violation of the right 

to familial association after child’s doctors and therapists placed medical hold on 

child and sought state-court order for involuntary residential treatment, even though 

defendants abandoned involuntary-treatment proceeding before court held hearing or 

entered any final order). The cause of action accrued at that time even though “the 

full extent of [her] injury [was] not then known or predictable.” Varnell v. Dora 

Consolidated Sch. Dist., 756 F.3d 1208, 1216 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation 

 3

 The defendants contend that she forfeited this argument by failing to raise it 

in district court. We disagree. She presented the argument sufficiently to preserve it 

for our review. See Aplt. App. at 136-37 (response to motion to dismiss). 

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 5 
6 

marks omitted). Nor was commencement of the limitations period delayed, as Ms. 

Canfield asserts, until the state court reached a final decision. Cf. Brodeur v. Am. 

Home Assurance Co., 169 P.3d 139, 146 (Colo. 2007) (accrual date for bad-faith tort 

suit based on harmful tardiness in handling worker’s compensation claim was not 

postponed until final resolution of worker’s compensation claim). She did not need 

to await the final decision to know that her parental rights had been injured. 

Second, Ms. Canfield argues that her complaint includes a conspiracy claim 

and that for such a claim, “the statute of limitations accrues when the conspiracy is 

complete, not when it begins.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 19. She contends that the 

conspiracy did not conclude until the juvenile court entered its final order allocating 

parental rights. But the district court properly determined that the Complaint did not 

assert a claim for conspiracy. Although Ms. Canfield cites three instances in her 

38-page Complaint where she alleged that the defendant caseworkers had 

“conspired” against her, these passing references—which fail to particularize why it 

is plausible to believe that all the defendants entered into a common agreement, as 

opposed to engaging in parallel conduct—do not suffice to state a conspiracy claim. 

See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007) (to plead a conspiracy 

claim, allegations of parallel conduct must be “placed in a context that raises a 

suggestion of a preceding agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as 

well be independent action”). A conclusory allegation of conspiracy will not suffice. 

See id. Further, Ms. Canfield’s response in district court to the defendants’ motion to 

dismiss failed to argue that her purported conspiracy claim did not accrue until entry 

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 6 
7 

of the 2012 order. It says merely, “The statute of limitations runs in a conspiracy 

claim under § 1983 when the conspiracy claim accrued and not when the defendants 

commenced the conspiracy.” Aplt. App. at 137. It was not the job of the district 

court to rescue Ms. Canfield’s claim by making her legal arguments and factual 

allegations for her. In her reply brief, Ms. Canfield requests leave to amend her 

complaint to state a conspiracy claim if it fails to do so. But we deny this request, 

made for the first time in the reply brief, because (1) she made no specific request in 

district court to amend her complaint to state a conspiracy claim, even after the court 

had put her on notice that she had not stated such a claim; (2) she had counsel in 

district court; and (3) she had already amended her complaint twice. 

Third, Ms. Canfield argues that her claims should be equitably tolled until the 

state court entered its final order because the defendants’ “wrongful conduct 

prevented [her] from pursuing . . . her claim.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 22. See Dean 

Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P.2d 1094, 1096 (Colo. 1996) (equitable 

tolling is appropriate “where the defendant’s wrongful conduct prevented the plaintiff 

from asserting his or her claims in a timely manner.”). The defendants’ alleged 

wrongful conduct, which “discouraged and circumvented Ms. Canfield’s efforts [to 

pursue] a civil action,” consisted of “false promises to her that the fastest way to get 

her children back was to comply with their demands.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 24. But 

the Complaint alleges that Ms. Canfield knew of the defendants’ false statements 

throughout the state litigation, she was continually at odds with the defendants, and 

the defendants pursued action against her almost relentlessly. In this context it would 

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 7 
8 

have been unreasonable for her to delay filing this suit for fear that the litigation 

would harm her in the state proceedings. 

Fourth, Ms. Canfield argues that under the “continuing violation doctrine,” her 

claims continued to accrue during the entire time period covered by her complaint. 

As the district court noted, however, this court has never held that the 

continuing-violation doctrine applies to § 1983 cases. And we have assumed that 

even if it does, “the doctrine is triggered by continual unlawful acts, not continual ill 

effects from the original violation.” Mata v. Anderson, 635 F.3d 1250, 1253 

(10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ms. Canfield does not allege 

any discrete unlawful acts that occurred during the two years before she filed this 

action. The last affirmative act taken by the defendants alleged in the complaint was 

in January 2012, when social workers testified at a hearing on the defendants’ motion 

for allocation of parental responsibility. This act preceded the two-year period before 

Ms. Canfield filed suit. (The Complaint does allege that “Douglas County, through 

DHS, continues to this day to deny Plaintiff her parental rights by the fraudulent 

omissions of evidence and outright suppression of material exculpatory evidence, by 

and through its public employees.” Aplt. App. at 179, ¶ 55. But this sentence fails to 

adequately allege additional wrongful acts. See Pike v. City of Mission, 731 F.2d 

655, 660 (10th Cir. 1984) (plaintiff could not rely on continuing-violation theory 

where he alleged that the defendants “continued to deny him reinstatement and a due 

process hearing” and to retain false information about him in their files during the 

limitations period, because “[t]hese acts are the natural result of the original 

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 8 
9 

employment decision,” not new grounds for relief), overruled on other grounds, 

Baker v. Board of Regents, 991 F.2d 628, 633 (10th Cir. 1993).)4

Finally, Ms. Canfield argues that the limitations period should have been tolled 

because she was “mentally incompetent.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 28-29. She admits 

that she was not really mentally incompetent, but she argues that DHS cannot have it 

both ways—arguing that she was not competent to be a parent and needed a guardian 

ad litem (GAL), yet was competent enough to understand that her constitutional 

rights had been violated as of September 10, 2010. The statute on which she relies, 

which deals with commencement of limitations periods for persons under a disability, 

provides that if such a person is represented by a legal representative, the 

representative has until two years after his or her appointment to take action on 

behalf of the person under a disability, notwithstanding any earlier expiration of the 

limitations period. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-81-103(1)(a). Ms. Canfield states that she 

was appointed a GAL in the state-court proceeding on October 28, 2011. Assuming 

the statute applies, her GAL thus had two years from that date, or until October 28, 

2013, to file this action. The GAL failed to do so. 

 4

 Although Ms. Canfield’s Complaint includes a prayer for injunctive relief, 

and a claim for declaratory relief against Douglas County, her claim for such relief 

does not allege additional specific acts that occurred or were threatened during the 

limitations period. Nor does Ms. Canfield rely on her claim for declaratory or 

injunctive relief to support her continuing-violation argument. 

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 9 
10 

CONCLUSION 

 As the district court correctly determined, the allegations of Ms. Canfield’s 

Complaint show that it was untimely filed. None of her arguments to the contrary 

has merit. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 

Entered for the Court 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-1014 Document: 01019498512 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 10