{"id":1988,"date":"2020-01-30T11:53:38","date_gmt":"2020-01-30T17:53:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1988"},"modified":"2020-02-04T12:32:12","modified_gmt":"2020-02-04T18:32:12","slug":"parker-v-bourdon-10th-cir-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/01\/30\/parker-v-bourdon-10th-cir-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Parker v. Bourdon (10th Cir. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Parker v. Bourdon, No. 19\u20134124 (10th Cir. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense in Utah, and subsequent — in 2007 — was required to register. In 2018, he brought suit challenging the constitutionality of his continued duty to register, alleging various constitutional violations. The district court dismissed the action as time-barred, concluding that Utah had a four year statute of limitations for \u00a7 1983 claims, and Appellant brought his lawsuit well outside of that window. Therefore, the lawsuit was dismissed, and Appellant sought review of that dismissal.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Appellant’s claims were barred by Utah’s four year statute of limitations. The Appellant claimed that his ongoing registration constituted a continuing violation for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, but the Court rejected this argument.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n