Clarifying the Two-Year Statute of Limitations for §1983 Medical Claims by Pretrial Detainees

Introduction

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Kolak v. Backerville, No. 24-1182 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025), addresses critical questions about the timing of §1983 claims by pretrial detainees seeking relief for alleged denial of medical care. Walter M. Kolak, a pro se litigant, alleged that the medical and detention-facility staff at Arapahoe County ignored or delayed treatment for his serious health complaints between January and May 2020. When he filed suit on October 17, 2022, the district court dismissed all claims as time-barred under Colorado’s two-year statute of limitations, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. This commentary examines the background, legal issues, and broader implications of that ruling.

Summary of the Judgment

The court’s decision can be distilled into three core holdings:

Statute of Limitations: Colorado’s two-year residual statute of limitations governs §1983 actions for denial of medical care. Because the events giving rise to Kolak’s claims ended by May 2020, his October 17, 2022 filing was five months too late.
No Equitable Tolling or Relation-Back: Kolak failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances or defendant misconduct prevented timely filing, so equitable tolling was inappropriate. And because his later lawsuit was a separate action (not an amendment), it could not “relate back” to his earlier, dismissed case.
Rule 60(b) Motion: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b) where Kolak merely reargued previously rejected points, ignoring procedural waiver rules.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 816 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2016): Held that a limitations defense may be decided on a motion to dismiss when the complaint’s own dates show claims are time-barred.
Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006): Confirmed that §1983 actions in Colorado borrow the state’s two-year statute and that a cause of action accrues when a plaintiff knows or should know the basis for suit.
Strain ex rel. Pratt v. Regalado, 977 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2020): Clarified that pretrial detainees’ medical-care claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth.
Braxton v. Zavaras, 614 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2010): Defined narrow grounds for equitable tolling—wrongful impediment or truly extraordinary circumstances.
Benge v. United States, 17 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 1994): Confirmed that a separately filed complaint cannot relate back to a previous, separate action.
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007): Recognized that a dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 is without prejudice, allowing refiling within the limitations window.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court applied a straightforward three-step inquiry:

Identify the applicable statute of limitations: Colorado’s two-year residual statute governs §1983 claims. (Fogle.)
Determine accrual date: A cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware of facts supporting suit—in this case, by May 2020 when Kolak’s injuries and ongoing denial of care were evident. (Fogle; Sierra Club.)
Assess tolling or relation-back:
- Equitable tolling applies only if a defendant’s wrongful acts impeded filing or truly extraordinary circumstances prevented it. Kolak made no such showing. (Braxton; Fogle.)
- Rule 15(c) relation-back does not apply to a new, separately filed complaint. Kolak’s second suit was not an amendment to the first. (Benge.)

The court also upheld the district court’s refusal to revisit these points under Rule 60(b), noting that objections raised only in response to a Report & Recommendation and never pressed in initial briefing are deemed waived. (Garfinkle; Marshall.)

3. Impact

This decision reinforces several important principles for §1983 practitioners:

Strict adherence to state limitations periods is required, even for pro se detainee litigants.
Equitable tolling remains an exceptional remedy that demands evidence of extraordinary circumstances or wrongful interference by defendants.
Relation-back protections under Rule 15(c) do not apply to entirely new filings; plaintiffs must amend their original complaints timely if they wish to preserve earlier filing dates.
Pro se litigants remain subject to the same procedural rules—failure to respond to dismissal motions or timely present tolling arguments risks waiver.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Cause of Action Accrual: A lawsuit “accrues” when you know—or should know—the facts that let you sue. In medical-care cases, that is typically when treatment was denied or delayed.
Statute of Limitations: The deadline for filing a lawsuit. Colorado gives two years for §1983 actions.
Equitable Tolling: A rare exception that pauses the deadline if the defendant’s wrongdoing or extreme circumstances made filing impossible on time.
Relation-Back Doctrine (Rule 15(c)): Allows amendments to count as filed on the original complaint’s date—but only if they are true amendments, not brand-new lawsuits.
Rule 60(b) Motion: A request to undo a judgment for reasons like mistake or new evidence. Courts will not use Rule 60(b) to reconsider arguments they already rejected.

Conclusion

Kolak v. Backerville confirms that pretrial detainees asserting delayed or denied medical care claims under §1983 must file within Colorado’s two-year limitations window, absent extraordinary justification for delay. The decision underscores the narrow scope of equitable tolling and makes clear that a separately filed suit cannot “relate back” to an earlier, dismissed complaint. For practitioners and detainee-litigants alike, the ruling highlights the importance of prompt filing, careful procedural compliance, and early assertion of any tolling arguments.