Cox v. Stanton

• Decision Date: 22 August 1974
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 800.
• Citation: 381 F. Supp. 349
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: Nial Ruth COX, Plaintiff, v. A. M. STANTON, M.D., et al., Defendants.

381 F. Supp. 349

Nial Ruth COX, Plaintiff, v. A. M. STANTON, M.D., et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 800.

United States District Court, E. D. North Carolina, Washington Division.

August 22, 1974.

J. LeVonne Chambers, Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning, Charlotte, N. C., Adam Stein, Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning Chapel Hill, N. C., Brenda Feigen Fasteau, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City, for plaintiff.

John H. Anderson, Smith, Anderson, Blount & Mitchell, Raleigh, N. C., Carl L. Bailey, Jr., Arthur E. Cockrell of Bailey & Cockrell, Plymouth, N. C., Clarence W. Griffin of Griffin & Martin, Williamston, N. C., R. Wendel Hutchins of Hutchins & Romanet, Plymouth, N. C., William F. O'Connell, Asst. Atty. Gen., N. C. Dept. of Justice, Raleigh, N. C., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LARKINS, District Judge:

This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief for alleged deprivations of her constitutional rights resulting from a sterilization operation. She also seeks individually and as representative of the class similarly situated to have this Court declare the Sterilization Statute of North Carolina, N.C.G.S. §§ 35-36 through 35-57, unconstitutional on its face and as applied.

Plaintiff is a 27 year old black woman, born September 26, 1946. On November 24, 1964, shortly after her eighteenth birthday, plaintiff gave birth to a daughter. She was not married. Plaintiff lived in or around Plymouth, North Carolina with her mother, Devora Cox, who received welfare benefits. Plaintiff alleges that she and her mother were pressured by defendant Howland, the welfare worker, into submitting to a temporary sterilization. She claims that she was told that if the operation were not performed her family would be stricken from the welfare rolls. At that time plaintiff was a minor, "under 21," and her mother consented to the operation. Upon obtaining the mother's alleged consent, defendant Spruill, County Director of Welfare, petitioned defendant Eugenics Board to order an operation. No hearing was held and the order was issued on January 28, 1965. Defendant Stanton performed an irreversible bilateral salpingectomy sterilization on the plaintiff on February 10, 1965, although the operation authorized was allegedly a tubal ligation, which is reversible.

Plaintiff claims she has suffered physical disabilities and discomfort as a result of the operation. In the fall of 1970 she first discovered that the operation was of a permanent nature. Her fiancee broke their engagement and plaintiff suffered mental anguish and depression. Plaintiff has been living in New York since 1970 or earlier and is a nurse's aid. On July 12, 1973 the instant action was filed.

Plaintiff alleges that she is not now and never has been mentally defective, she was not afforded a hearing prior to the operation, she never consented to the operation, and she was not told the operation was permanent. She claims her constitutional rights were violated in that (1) she was deprived of notice and hearing on a matter of life and liberty, (2) she was deprived of her rights of privacy and to bear children, (3) she was denied equal protection in that she was discriminated against because of her race, sex, age, marital status, and indigency, and (4) she was the victim of cruel and unusual punishment. She claims that the sterilization statute is unconstitutional because (1) it is an arbitrary exercise of state power, (2) does not provide adequate procedural safeguards, (3) is impermissibly vague, (4) relies on coerced consent of someone other than the victim, (5) interferes with rights to privacy, (6) is discriminatorily applied, and (7) inflicts cruel and unusual punishment on those sterilized without their consent.

The defendants have answered and filed motions for judgment on the pleadings. They base their motions on the statute of limitations, immunity, failure to exhaust state remedies, the plaintiff's consent to the operation, and standing. All parties have filed comprehensive briefs outlining their positions. Although the parties have indicated a willingness to be heard, no hearing is necessary due to the thorough material submitted and the clear questions presented. Since there has been no specific request for a hearing under Local Rule 4(H), the issues are now ready for determination.

I. Statute of Limitations:

The issue of primary concern is defendants' contention that this action is barred by the North Carolina statute of limitations. The operation was performed on February 10, 1965. Plaintiff became 21 on September 26, 1967. She discovered her sterilization was permanent in the fall of 1970. This action was commenced on July 12, 1973. The dispute involves the appropriate statute of limitation and the exact time that the cause of action accrued.

It is well settled that where a federal statute, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has no provision limiting the time within which an action may be brought, the applicable period of limitation is that provided by the state in which the action arose. See Almond v. Kent, 459 F.2d 200 (4th Cir. 1972), citing O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 34 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3rd Cir. 1972); Smith v. Cremins, 308 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1962).

The General Statutes of North Carolina regarding time limitations are provided as follows:

"§ 1-52. Three years. — Within three years an action — (2) Upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture, unless some other time is mentioned in the statute creating it. . . .

(5) For criminal conversation, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on on contract and not hereafter enumerated. . . ."

"§ 1-54. One year. — Within one year an action or proceeding — (1) Against a public officer, for a trespass under color of his office. . . (3) For libel, slander, assault, battery, or false imprisonment. . ."

Plaintiff strongly urges that the 3 year statute of limitation applies in that the action arose upon a liability created by a statute, § 1-52(2), and upon an injury to plaintiff's person, § 1-52(5). Defendants do not stressfully oppose the 3 year limitation but base their argument on the accrual date of the cause of action. In a case dealing with two California limitation statutes similar to the ones at bar, it was held that § 1983 actions were actions "upon a liability created by statute" and the 3 year limitation applied. See Smith v. Cremins, supra at 189, 190. Glasscoe v. Howell, 431 F.2d 863 (8th Cir. 1970) used a like interpretation of Arkansas laws.

It must also be noted that the characterization of this action for the purpose of selecting the appropriate state limitations provision is ultimately a question of federal law. However there is no reason to reject the state characterization unless such characterization is unreasonable or inconsistent with federal policy. See International Union v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696, 86 S.Ct. 1107, 16 L.Ed.2d 192, (1966) (applying Indiana characterization). In malpractice suits for negligent injury, North Carolina has applied the three year statute of limitation. See Shearin v. Lloyd, 246 N.C. 363, 98 S.E.2d 508 (1957); Connor v. Schenck, 240 N.C. 794, 84 S.E.2d 175 (1954).

It is the conclusion of this Court that the 3 year statute of limitations under § 1-52 is the appropriate one for statutory grievances under § 1983 and personal injuries under North Carolina law.

Plaintiff contends that the cause of action accrued at the time she discovered the injury, i. e. the fall of 1970, and the action is therefore timely. She asserts that federal law controls the accrual date and that fundamental rights protected by § 1983 demand that such date be at the time of discovery. She also contends that N.C.G.S. § 1-15(b) supports her position. Defendants argue that under North Carolina law the cause of action accrued at the time of the operation. They further argue that § 1-15(b) did not become effective until July 31, 1971, at which time plaintiff's suit was already barred.

North Carolina General Statutes § 1-15, now 1-15(a) provides:

"Civil actions can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this Chapter, after the cause of action has accrued, except where in special cases a different limitation is prescribed by statute."

In North Carolina it has been held that the cause of action accrues at the time of the wrongful act or omission without regard to the time the harmful consequences were discovered. Shearin v. Lloyd, supra; Connor v. Schenck, supra; Lewis v. Shaver, 236 N.C. 510, 73 S.E.2d 320 (1952); Strong's Index, 2d, Vol. 5, p. 235; Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 532. However in 1971 § 1-15 was amended by adding § 1-15(b) which provides:

"Except where otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action, other than one for wrongful death, having as an essential element bodily injury to the person or a defect in or damage to property which originated under circumstances making the injury, defect or damage not readily apparent to the claimant at the time of its origin, is deemed to have accrued at the time the injury was discovered by the claimant, or ought reasonably to have been discovered by him, whichever event first occurs; provided that in such cases the period shall not exceed 10 years from the last act of the defendant giving rise to the claim for relief."

This amendment was effective upon ratification July 31, 1971 and was not to affect pending litigation. See Session Laws 1971, c. 1157, s. 2.

There are numerous cases that hold that federal and not state law applies to accrual even if the time limitation is borrowed from the state. See Railing v. United Mine Workers of America, 429 F.2d 780 (4th Cir. 1970), remanded 401 U.S. 486, 91 S.Ct. 991, 28 L.Ed.2d 272 (1971), on remand 445 F.2d 353 (4th Cir. 1971); ...