Circuit Judge Federico, writing for a three-judge panel, held that the district court erred in dismissing Sandra Vasquez-Garcia's claims on statute of limitations grounds. The court held the lower court "erroneously gave the benefit of the doubt to the defendants rather than to Vasquez-Garcia."
Vasquez-Garcia was incarcerated at the Western New Mexico Correctional Facility from September 2017 until her release in May 2021. She filed suit on May 7, 2024, exactly three years after her release, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against healthcare contractors Centurion LLC, Wexford Health Sources Inc., and other defendants for deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs.
The Tenth Circuit held that Vasquez-Garcia's complaint plausibly alleged that her constitutional claims were timely filed under the three-year New Mexico statute of limitations. Judge Federico explained that "there are no facts alleged in the complaint that support the inference that Vasquez-Garcia knew or reasonably should have known the subjective component of her deliberate indifference claim outside the statute of limitations period."
The panel sharply criticized the district court's analysis, writing that the lower court "relied on facts that Vasquez-Garcia did not allege to find that her injury was known or knowable outside the limitations period." Judge Federico noted that "in disregarding these basic principles, the district court made the kind of fact-finding barred by Rule 12(b)(6)."
The court also addressed the continuing violations doctrine as an alternative ground for reversal. Judge Federico wrote that "where the plaintiff alleges that the 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 Tenth Circuit additionally held 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."