State COVID-19 Tolling Applies to § 1983: Tenth Circuit Aligns Kansas’s Pandemic Suspension with Federal Accrual Rules and Affirms Time Bar and Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Introduction

In Pierce v. Cannon, No. 24-3183 (10th Cir. Mar. 25, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from an alleged sexual assault at the El Dorado Correctional Facility (EDCF) in Kansas. The panel held that:

Official-capacity damages claims against Kansas prison officials are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity (and therefore dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1)); and
Individual-capacity claims were untimely under the two-year Kansas statute of limitations borrowed for § 1983 actions—even after crediting Kansas’s pandemic-era suspension of limitations—which the court applied because it advances § 1983’s remedial goals (dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)).

While the order and judgment is nonprecedential, it provides persuasive guidance on two recurring issues in civil rights litigation: (1) the contours of Eleventh Amendment immunity and its prospective-relief exception; and (2) how state tolling and suspension rules—in particular Kansas’s March 19, 2020 to April 15, 2021 pandemic suspension—interact with federal accrual rules in § 1983 cases.

Case Background

Plaintiff-appellant Morehei Pierce, a Kansas state inmate, alleged he was celled with a “known sexual predator.” Shortly after placement, the cellmate brandished a shank and threatened Pierce. Pierce reported the threat to Officer Gorman, who allegedly responded that “he didn’t give a [expletive].” Pierce was later sexually assaulted. Medical staff confirmed the assault, but an EDCF investigator, Defendant Cannon, concluded there had been no assault, which Pierce characterized as a “cover up.” Pierce sued Cannon, Gorman, and former EDCF Warden William Waddington, among others, seeking monetary damages for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The district court (D. Kan.) dismissed:

Official-capacity claims under Rule 12(b)(1) on Eleventh Amendment grounds; and
Individual-capacity claims under Rule 12(b)(6) as time barred by Kansas’s two-year limitations period, even after accounting for the state’s COVID-era suspension.

Pierce appealed, and the Tenth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to affirm.

Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo the district court’s Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) dismissals and, liberally construing Pierce’s pro se pleadings, affirmed on both grounds:

Official-capacity claims for money damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The prospective-relief exception did not apply because Pierce sought only damages, not forward-looking relief to halt an ongoing violation.
Individual-capacity claims are subject to Kansas’s two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury analogs (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(4)). Under federal law, § 1983 claims accrue when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury; Pierce knew by November 13, 2020 at the latest. The court applied Kansas’s pandemic suspension of statutes of limitation (March 19, 2020 through April 15, 2021), concluding that doing so advances § 1983’s goals. As a result, the limitations period ran from April 15, 2021 and expired April 15, 2023. Pierce’s April 23, 2024 filing was untimely.

Because these two grounds were dispositive, the court did not reach Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(5) service-of-process argument.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Williams v. Utah Department of Corrections, 928 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2019): Reaffirms that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars suits against the state, its arms, and state officials sued for damages in their official capacities. The Tenth Circuit relied on Williams to uphold dismissal of official-capacity claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Kripp v. Luton, 466 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2006): Establishes two core § 1983 timing rules in the Tenth Circuit: (1) courts borrow the forum state’s personal-injury statute of limitations (here, Kansas’s two-year period), and (2) federal law governs accrual: a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury.
Shrum v. Cooke, 60 F.4th 1304 (10th Cir. 2023): Confirms that state tolling rules are generally borrowed in § 1983 litigation unless borrowing would thwart federal policy underpinning § 1983.
Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (1978): The Supreme Court’s touchstone on borrowing state rules in § 1983 actions unless inconsistent with federal law or § 1983’s purposes. The Tenth Circuit used Robertson to evaluate whether applying Kansas’s COVID-era suspension would advance § 1983’s remedial and deterrent aims—which it concluded it would.
E.W. v. Health Net Life Ins. Co., 86 F.4th 1265 (10th Cir. 2023): Allows consideration of documents attached to the complaint at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage if they are central to the claims and their authenticity is undisputed. The panel relied on this to consider the investigation status report signed by Pierce on November 13, 2020.
Trackwell v. U.S. Government, 472 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2007): Confirms de novo review of Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) dismissals and the liberal construction of pro se filings.
Kansas Supreme Court Administrative Orders: The court identified and applied Kansas’s pandemic suspension of statutes of limitation from March 19, 2020 through April 15, 2021. See Kan. Sup. Ct., Admin. Order No. 2021-RL-32 (Apr. 3, 2020); Kan. Sup. Ct., Admin. Order No. 2021-PR-020 (Mar. 30, 2021).

Legal Reasoning

1) Eleventh Amendment Immunity (Rule 12(b)(1))

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its arms in federal court, including damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities. This immunity is jurisdictional in the Tenth Circuit and is therefore addressed under Rule 12(b)(1). Only a narrow exception allows suits for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief to end an ongoing violation of federal law. Pierce’s complaint sought only monetary damages; he did not allege an ongoing violation or request prospective relief. Consequently, his official-capacity claims against the EDCF officials could not proceed.

2) Limitations, Accrual, and Tolling (Rule 12(b)(6))

Limitations Period: Under Kripp, § 1983 actions in Kansas borrow the two-year personal-injury limitations period in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(4).
Federal Accrual Rule: A § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury. The complaint and incorporated report show Pierce knew of his injury by November 13, 2020.
Borrowing State Tolling/Suspension: Under Shrum and Robertson, state tolling rules apply unless inconsistent with § 1983’s goals. The panel expressly concluded that adopting Kansas’s COVID-19 suspension of statutes of limitation advances § 1983’s compensatory and deterrent purposes. As applied here, the suspension delayed the start of the limitations clock until April 15, 2021.
Outcome of the Timing Analysis: Treating April 15, 2021 as the effective start date for the two-year clock, the limitations period expired on April 15, 2023. Pierce filed his complaint on April 23, 2024—over a year late. Thus, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper on the face of the pleadings and attached documents.

Note: The panel framed the result as the claim “did not accrue until April 15, 2021” because of the suspension. Functionally, the court used the state suspension to delay the start of the limitations period until the suspension ended. Whether phrased as delayed accrual or tolling, the effect is that the two-year period began to run on April 15, 2021.

Impact and Practical Significance

A. Eleventh Amendment and Pleading Strategy

Official-capacity damages claims against Kansas correctional officials are jurisdictionally barred; plaintiffs seeking systemic change must plead prospective relief to fit the exception for ongoing violations.
Individual-capacity claims remain viable (not barred by the Eleventh Amendment) but must satisfy timeliness and other pleading requirements.

B. Clear Timetable for Kansas § 1983 Claims Arising During COVID Suspension

The Tenth Circuit’s application of the Kansas suspension provides a bright-line date: for injuries known during the suspension window, the limitations “clock” effectively begins April 15, 2021 and expires April 15, 2023.
Litigants cannot rely on the suspension to extend filings beyond that date absent other valid tolling doctrines; late filings will be dismissed at the pleadings stage if untimeliness is apparent from the complaint and attachments.

C. Broader Tenth Circuit Signal on Borrowing State Tolling

The court’s reasoning underscores a willingness to borrow state tolling/suspension measures in § 1983 litigation when consistent with federal policy—supporting similar arguments in other states within the circuit that adopted pandemic-related tolling devices.
The decision threads the established needle: federal law governs accrual; state law supplies the limitations period and tolling, unless inconsistent with § 1983.

D. Pro Se Considerations and Rule 12(b)(6)

Even with liberal construction, pro se litigants must satisfy jurisdictional and timeliness requirements. Courts may consider complaint exhibits in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, which can crystalize accrual dates and time bars early.
Where claims appear untimely on the face of the pleadings, dismissal at the motion-to-dismiss stage is appropriate.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Official vs. Individual Capacity: Suing a state official in an official capacity is effectively suing the state; damages claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Suing in an individual capacity targets the official personally, which is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment (though other defenses, like qualified immunity or statutes of limitation, may apply).
Eleventh Amendment Immunity: States and their arms (e.g., a state prison or its officials sued in official capacity) are generally immune from damages suits in federal court. A narrow exception allows suits for prospective relief to stop an ongoing federal-law violation.
Accrual (Federal Law): The federal clock for a § 1983 claim starts when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury, not when the plaintiff discovers the legal theory or identifies the responsible officials.
Borrowed Limitations and Tolling (State Law): Federal courts borrow the forum state’s statute of limitations and related tolling rules for § 1983 claims, unless doing so would undermine § 1983’s goals (compensation and deterrence).
Pandemic Suspension: During COVID-19, Kansas suspended statutes of limitation from March 19, 2020 to April 15, 2021. For injuries known during that period, the Tenth Circuit treats April 15, 2021 as the effective start of the two-year clock for § 1983 filings.

Key Timelines in Pierce

Latest injury discovery date (from complaint attachment): November 13, 2020.
Kansas suspension of limitations: March 19, 2020 – April 15, 2021.
Effective start of two-year clock: April 15, 2021.
Limitations expiration: April 15, 2023.
Complaint filed: April 23, 2024 (untimely).

What Might Have Changed the Outcome?

Pleading prospective injunctive or declaratory relief aimed at an ongoing violation could have avoided Eleventh Amendment bars for official-capacity claims (though the presence of an ongoing violation would need to be plausibly alleged).
Filing by April 15, 2023 (or establishing another valid tolling basis beyond the pandemic suspension) could have preserved the individual-capacity claims for adjudication on the merits.

Conclusion

Pierce v. Cannon reinforces core structural rules in § 1983 litigation within the Tenth Circuit. First, Eleventh Amendment immunity forecloses damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities absent a request for prospective relief targeting an ongoing violation. Second, the court’s treatment of Kansas’s pandemic suspension shows how federal accrual principles and state tolling mechanisms interact: Kansas’s March 19, 2020–April 15, 2021 suspension applies to § 1983 actions because it furthers the statute’s remedial and deterrent objectives, effectively setting April 15, 2021 as the start date for the two-year limitations period in cases like this one.

Although nonprecedential, the opinion provides persuasive guidance on timing and immunity issues that routinely arise in prisoner civil-rights suits. It underscores the importance of timely filing, careful capacity pleading, and—when appropriate—requests for prospective relief to fit within the limited pathway around Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Note: The panel resolved the appeal without oral argument and designated the decision as an order and judgment not binding except under law-of-the-case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, though citable for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.