Sandra Vasquez-Garcia was incarcerated at the Western New Mexico Correctional Facility from September 2017 until her release in May 2021. During her custody, she suffered from diabetes, asthma, thyroid disorder, and blood pressure issues. She alleges that healthcare contractors Centurion LLC, Wexford Health Sources Inc., and other defendants systematically failed to provide adequate medical care.
Vasquez-Garcia claims this deliberate indifference resulted in escalating complications, including diabetic nephropathy, vision loss, congestive heart failure, and stage five renal failure after her release. She filed suit on May 7, 2024, exactly three years after her release, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
U.S. District Judge James Browning dismissed the complaint with prejudice in January 2025, finding that Vasquez-Garcia knew or should have known of her claims more than three years before filing. The district court concluded that her escalating symptoms would have put her on notice of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing during her incarceration.
The Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred by relying on facts Vasquez-Garcia did not allege to find that her injury was known or knowable outside the limitations period. Circuit Judge Federico, writing for the panel, stated the lower court "erroneously gave the benefit of the doubt to the defendants rather than to Vasquez-Garcia."
The panel emphasized that for deliberate indifference claims, a plaintiff must know both that her injuries were objectively serious and that defendants acted with the requisite subjective state of mind. The court noted there are no facts in the complaint supporting the inference that Vasquez-Garcia knew or reasonably should have known the subjective component of her claim outside the statute of limitations period.
Defendants argued that Vasquez-Garcia's escalating symptoms and diagnoses should have alerted her to their alleged deliberate indifference. However, the Tenth Circuit rejected this, noting the complaint said nothing about what medical staff told her about her symptoms or proposed treatment courses. Defendants' counsel conceded during oral argument that there is nothing in the complaint about what Vasquez-Garcia knew and when she knew it.
The panel also addressed the continuing violations doctrine as an alternative ground for reversal. Judge Federico wrote that where a plaintiff alleges defendants observed but persistently failed to properly treat her chronic, continuous health conditions, she may rely on the continuing violations doctrine to survive a statute of limitations defense.
The court distinguished this case from Herrera v. City of Espanola, noting that here "it is precisely the cumulative effect of the defendants' alleged conduct that underwrites Vasquez-Garcia's theory of liability." The district court had erroneously concluded that the Tenth Circuit had never applied the continuing violations doctrine to Section 1983 cases.
The Tenth Circuit also found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss claims against two defendants who were never served with process. The court noted that without personal jurisdiction over unserved defendants, the district court "could not dismiss with prejudice claims against them."