## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 1409 B R I ANN A R AY, as Adm i ni st r at o r o fthe E state of R OBERT C. R AY, de c e a s e d, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v.
C HA UN CE Y C. M AHER, III, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 10 C3199

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judg e.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 16, 2011

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 1, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d W OO D a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Ne a r l y thr e e y e a r s a ft e r R o b e r tC. Ra y di ed i n c us to dy atthe Sa ng amon Cou nty J ai l, the a d mi n i s t r a t o r o fR a y ’ s es t a t e fi l e d a n e i g h t
- c o u n tc o mpla i nt ag ai nst the j ai l ’ s doct or( Dr. M ah er ) , the county sher iff, and sevente en co rr ecti onalo ffi cer s a nd nurse s empl o y ed bythe c o unty . Co untIi s a co m bine d W r o ng ful2 N o. 11

- 1409 Death A ct, 74 0 I LC S 180/2, and Sur vi valA ct, 755 I LC S 5/27- 6, n eg lige n c e c laim ag ain st D r. M ah er . C ou n ts II -V III al l eg e vi o l at i o ns o fRa y ’ s F o ur te en thAm en dm en t r i g ht to b as i c m edi ca ls er vi ce s unde r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 983 a nd nam e al l defe nd ants. The dist ri ct cour t dism i sse d co unts I I

- VI I Ias ti m e-b arre d by the two- yea r I l l i noi s s tatute ofl i m i tat i ons f orper sonali nj ury a c ti ons and declined to e xe r ci se s uppl ement alj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r the r emai ni ng sta te- l aw cl ai m . Th e pl ai nti ffar gues that the di str i ct co ur t sh o ul d ha ve t o l l ed th e l i m i tati o ns pe r i o d f o r the § 1983 clai m s beca us e the sole ben efi cia r y of Ra y’s est ate was a m i norwh en Ray’ s ca use o f act i on a ro se. (She d oes not cha ll en ge th e d istri ct cou rt’s discretiona ry decl i nati on t o re tain supp l em entalj u ri sdic ti on o ver the st at e l aw cl ai m i n Count I

. S he o nl y a sks f ori t t o be reinstat ed if th e § 1983 claim s are.) A s th e d istri ct cou rt r e c o g n i z e d , h e r a r g u me n ti s me r i t l e s s . We a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D Ray was ar re ste d fo r conte m pt ofco urt on Se ptem ber25 , 2 0 07 . B efo re be in g p lac ed in t h e Sa n ga m on C ou n ty Jail, R ay w as treate d f or alcoh ol w ithd raw al at St. J ohn ’s H osp i t a l

. He wa s i l la g a i n s o o n a ft e r b e i ngj a i l e d, b ut, acco rdi ng to t h e com pla i nt, hi s r epeate d request s for m edi cation were denie d. H e was as si gned “hi gh r i sk” st atu s a n d s c h e d u l e d t o b e o b s e r v e d e v e r y fi ft e e n mi nu te s. W h en D r. M ah er ex am in e d R ay atap p ro x im ate l y 1 : 30 p. m . o n th e 2 8th, he no ted thatRay w as d iap h or et ic a n d d i so rie n te d an d se em ed to be h all u c i n a t i n g . D r . Ma h e r p r e s c r ib e d H a l d o la n d L ib r u i m.N o. 11

- 1409 3 The drugs were ev entual l y adm i ni ste re d, but Ray w as not tak en to a hospi tal

. By 11 p. m . o n the 28th, a cor re cti o na lo ffi ce r s aw tha t Ra y was s wea ting, mum bl i ng i ncoher entl y, and not re sponding to hi s n am e. Ray w as tot al l y unre sponsi ve by 11: 45 p. m . and EM Ts decl ar ed hi m dead j ust be f or e m i dn i ght. Gina M i l l er, Ray’ s e x-wife, was n am ed adm i ni str ato r ofRay’ s e sta te on Au gust 4, 20 10. Sh e fi l ed thi s a cti on i n the Ce nt r alDi st r i cto fI l l i noi s o n Augus t 6, 2 01 0. The defen dan ts fi l ed a m o ti o n t o dism is s, whi chpo i nt ed o ut tha tthe § 1983 c l a i ms we r e n o tfi l e d wi thin the a pp li cab le tw o-year l im itations p eriod. Th e d istric t cou rt gr an te d t h e m o t ion, in d ica tin g t h at th e a ge of a b en efic iary i s ir relevan t to the li m itations an alysis for a c laim br ou gh t b y t h e e st at e. Br i anna Ra y, the da ug ht er o fRo be r t C. Ra y a nd Gi na M i l l er and the sol e benefi ci ar y of her f ather ’ s esta te, r e c e n t l y tu r n e d e i g h t e e n a n d r e p l a c e d Mi l l e r a s a dm i ni st r at o r . W e no te thi s ch an g e pr i m ar i l y t o e xpl ain the ca se c apt i o n; i t ha s no e ffec t o n o urde ci si o n.

II. D I SC US SI ON W e r evi ew de nov o a di str i ct c ourt ’ s o rd er gr anti ng a R u le 12( b) ( 6) m oti on t o dism i ss base d on the sta tute of lim ita tio n s. M i ddl e t on v . C ity of Chi cago , 57 8 F
. 3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2009). N otwithsta n d i ng the sa d fa cts und er l yi ng thi s ca se, th e es ta te ’ s § 19 83 cl ai m s ar e o bv i o us l y unt im ely and m ust be di sm i sse d. Feder all aw does not s et the l i m i ta-4 N o. 11

- 1409 ti ons peri od i n § 198 3 ac ti ons. Instea d, 42 U
. S. C. § 1 988( a) i ns t r uc t s us t o l o o k t o s t a t e l a w. S pe c i fi c a l l y, we l oo k to the l i m i tat ions peri od f orper sonali nj ury acti ons. A nd erson v. R o m ero , 42 F .3d 11 21 , 11 2 4 ( 7 th C ir. 19 94 ). In I l li noi s, thatper i od i s tw o yea rs . 73 5 I LC S 5/ 13- 202; Wal l ac ev. Ka to , 54 9 U .S. 38 4, 38 7 (2 00 7); Ash af a v. Ci ty of Chic ago , 1 46 F
. 3d 459, 46 2 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8)

. The l i m i ta ti o ns peri od i s appli ed i n i ts enti re ty, com ple te w i th rela ted to llin g p ro vis ion s. Har di n v. St aub , 49 0 U.S

. 53 6, 53 8 ( 1989 ) ( “Courts

. . . s h ou ld n ot unrave lst ate l i m i tat i ons rul es unle ss th eir fullappli cati on would defeatthe goa l s o f the fed er al statute a t i ssue. ”)

. Fr om the ti m e hi s ca use of ac ti o n a cc r ue d, b etwee n S ept embe r 2 5th a nd 2 8th, 2007, Ray and then hi s r epres entat i ve h ad two yea rs to sue forvi ol ati ons ofRay’ s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts. 73 5 I L C S 5/13-209(a)(1)

. Be c a u s e the f orm er ad m inistrator, M il ler, w as ( a n d h ad to be) an ad ult, an d becau se th ere i s no al l ega ti on that the defe nd ants have interfer ed w i th herabi l i ty to sta te a cl ai m , the pla i nti ffhas pr es en te d no justifi ab l e r ea so n t o t o l lthe l i m i ta ti o ns peri od. The ag e o fthe b en efici ar y o fthe est ate m ake s n o d i ffe r e n c e . In o r d e r to be t i me l y, R a y ’ s § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms had to be filed byS eptem ber28 , 20 09. Thi s s uitwas fi l ed m o r e th ant enmonths l at e, on A ug ust 6, 2 01 0. The dist ri ct c ourt, ther ef or e, p roperl y di sm i sse d Ray’ s § 19 83 c l a i m s. Loga n v . Wi l ki ns , 6 4 4 F
. 3 d 5 7 7, 5 8 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 11) ( expla i ni ng tha t a l though a st atute o fl i m i tat i ons defense i s no t usual l y par t o fa Rule 12(b) ( 6) m oti on t o dism i ss, “when the al l ega ti ons o f the com pla i nt r eve al that re l i efi s ba rr ed by the a pp l i cabl e s tatute o fl i m i tati ons, the com pla i nt i s s ubj ect to dism i ssa lf orf ailure t o state a clai m ”).N o. 11

- 1409 5 T he plaintiff’s argum en t to the con t r a ry

— th atthe l i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d s ho ul d b e t o l l e d b e c a us e th e b en efic iar y of t h e e s t a t e w as a m in or w h en th e c laim a r o se

— i s bo thno ve la nd un su ppo r te d. I m ag i ne i fs he w er e co rrec t. W e ca n pres um e that there ar e, and have b ee n, th ou sa n d s o f es t a t es w ith m in or be n efic iar ies in I l l i noi s a l one. I s i t pos sibl e that cl ai m s be l onging to th o se e st at es a r e to l l ed unti lthe b en efi ci ar i es r ea chthe ag e o f maj o r i t y ? T h a t wo u l d b e a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r i g ht f o r e s t a t e s . An d i fe s t a t e s d i d h a v e s u c h a r i g h t, we w oul d expect i t t o be r efl ecte d i n the I l l i noi s co de, o r i n a t l ea sta s i ng l e ca se , i n s o m e j uri sdi ct i o n. The pla i nti ffcan fi nd no such la w o r case , o fco urse , because ther e i s no such r i ght. W he n s o m eo ne e nt i tl ed to s ue unde r § 1 98 3 di es , a nd the c l ai m i nures to hi s o r her est ate , the adm i ni str ato r m ust di l i gently purs ue the cl ai m o r los e i t, m uch l i ke th e al l eg edly i nj ur ed p erson e nt i tl ed to b r i ngthe cl ai m i n the fi rs t pl ace. A n adm i ni str ato r’ s pos i tion i s no t i denti calto the i nj ured party’ s be c au se Il l i noi s g i ves a re p re se n t a t i v e u p to an ex tr a y ea r to br in g a cla im if the per son o rig inal l y e nti tl ed to br i ng i t di es w i th l ess than a yea r l eft in the l i m i tat i ons peri od . 735 I LC S 5/ 13- 20 9(a )(1) . B u t t h a t n u an c e h as n o b ea rin g on th is case since Ray die d the sa m e day as hi s cl ai m s a ccru ed

. A repres en tative ha d t o b ring the est ate’s cl ai m s withi n two yea rs ofthatday, S eptem ber28 , 20 07. U nfortu na tely f or Brian na , the be ne fi ciary of R ay’s est ate , thati s no t what happened and the est ate ’ s § 19 83 c l a i ms a r e n o w t i me-b a r r e d.6 N o. 11

- 1409 T h e a rg u m en t t h at B ria n n a’s ag e s om eh ow m at te rs is b e lie d by anot he r settled point of law : § 1983 claim s are p er so n al t o th e inj u re d p ar ty
. S e e, e . g. , R u ss v. Watts , 41 4 F. 3d 783, 79 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( hold in g that parents m ay sue o nl y forco nsti tuti onali nj ury to them sel ves, notf or c on st i t u t i o n al inj u rie s t o th eir so n ); E st ate of Johnson by C astl e v. Libe rtyville, 819 F

. 2d 174, 17 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87) ( hol ding that parents cannotr ecoverunder § 1983 f or i nj u r i e s t o th e i r d a u g h t e r, b u to n l y f o r i nj u r i e s t o th e mse lve s); Spe nc ev. St aras , 50 7 F
. 2d 554, 55 7 ( 7th C ir. 19 74) ( hol ding that a par ent c oul d s u e only i n a r epres entat i ve and not a n i nd i vi du alcapaci ty f ora depri vati on o fher son’ s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts)

. U nti lnow, our ca ses have l eft thi s be drockpri nci ple o f§ 1983 law i n the back

grou nd and i t has pa rtial ly su rfaced m a inly w he re parents have sued f ori nj u res t o thei r chi l dren. But other ci rcuits h av e be en m or e e xpli ci t about the g ener alpoi nt. See, e. g,. C laybrook v. B ir ch w el l , 19 9 F
. 3d 350, 35 7 ( 6th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( a § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m i s “ e n t i r e l y p e r s o n a l t o t he di r ec t vi ct i m o fthe al l eg ed co ns ti tu ti o na lto r t
. . . o nl y the pu rpor ted vi cti m , o r hi s e sta te’ s r epres entat i ve(s), m ay p ro se c u te a se c tio n 19 83 cla im ”); Arc hul e t a v. M cS han , 897 F. 2d 495, 49 7 ( 10th Cir

. 19 90) ( i t i s a “w ell-sett l ed pri nci ple thata sect i on 1 983 cl ai m m ust be bas ed upon th e vi o l at i o n o fplainti ff’ s per so na lr i g ht s, a nd no t th e rights of som eon e e lse”). So, i f § 1983 clai m s are perso nalto the partyal l eging a const i tutio nali nj ury, f ac ts ab o utBr i anna

— as a be nefi ci ar y o fRay’ s e sta te, as a m i nor, o r as a par ty enti tl ed to br i ng a sta te- l aw w r o n gfu l d ea th cla im

— coul d onl y m att erf orthe l i m i tations p eriod if s hew ere all eging a con stitut ional injuryN o. 11

- 1409 7 to herse lf

. A s s et out i n the c om pla i nt and as conceded ata r g ume nt, h o we v e r, the § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms i n thi s c ase i nvol ve onl y the “depri vati on o fRobe rt R ay’ s 1 4th Am en dm en t r i g ht s to b as i c he al th c ar e se r vi ce s. ” Br i anna has notal l ege d a co nsti tuti onali nj ury to hers el fbas ed on l oss o fsoci etywith he r f ather, so she does not see k to ha ve u s a d d ress whethe r the r ul e i n R uss , 41 4 F
. 3d at 790, appli es to a cl ai m bya chi l d fo r const itu tional i nj uri es to her parent. F i na l l y, we su spe cttha t th e pl aint if f ha s co nfus ed th e w ay sta te l aw f acto rs i nto rem edies ava i l abl e under § 1 983 w i th the way sta te l aw deter m i nes the l im it at i ons pe r i od

. W i th r ega rd to the lim ita ti ons peri od, the l aw co uld not be m ore straightforw ard : cou rts loo k t o th e state p erso na li nj ur y s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns a nd i ts a tt en dan t tol l i ng pro vi si ons. The l i m i tat i ons peri od, ther ef or e, has no th i ngt o do wi ththe I l l i no i s W r o ng fulDeath Acta nd does not depend on w ho m ay benefi t fro m the sui t. Rem edie s, how ever, ar e di ffer ent. A n est ate br i ngi ng a decedent’s § 1983 cl ai m s m ay see k dam age s a l l ow abl e under a st at e w ro n gfu l d ea th st at u te
. See, e . g. , Ba ss v. Walle nst ei n , 76 9 F .2d 11 73 , 118 9 (7 th C ir. 19 85 ) (co n sid er in g t h e Illino is W ro ngful D eath A ct t o deter m i ne the pro per m eas ure of d am ages in a § 1983 su it al legi ng viol ations of de ced en t’s Eighth and Fo urte enth Am endm ent r i ghts)

. But j ust b ec au se it m ay be ap p ro p ria te to co n sid er th e Illino is W ro ngful Death A ct in re l ati on t o re m edi es does not m ean th atsam e st at e l aw ha s an y r el ev an ce whende te r m i ni ng th e lim ita tio n s p er iod

. Wilso n v . G a r cia, 471 U
. S. 26 1, 27 6- 77 ( 1985 ) , m ade i t cl earthatthe only s tate- l aw l i m i tati ons provi si ons re l evantto § 1983 cl ai m s a re t h ose that8 N o. 11

- 1409 p ertain to p erson al inj ury action s. A fter Wi l s on , cou rts are no l onge r fre e t o bor ro w “the m ostappropr i ate [ l im itati ons peri od] provi ded byst ate l aw . ” Johns on v. Rai l way E xpres s A gency, 42 1 U. S

. 45 4, 46 2 ( 19 75 )

. But, ha ving con fused how w e m ay d eterm ine th e correct m easu re ofdam age s wit h t h e w ay w e m ust a nal yze the l i m i tati ons peri od, thati s j ust what the plain ti ffhas ask ed us to do.

III. C ON CLU SI ON The statute ofl i m i tat i ons has r un on the est ate ’ s § 19 83 c l a i ms a nd the y we r e p r o pe r l y di s mi s s e d. A FFI RMED .

11- 1- 11