Courtney Bird v. Hawaii, et al.

Courtney Bird alleges the State of Hawai‘i systematically violates the due process rights of parents by reporting them as confirmed child abusers on the State’s Child Abuse Registry without ever bearing the burden to show they have committed child abuse, without providing any means to get off the Registry even if they are innocent, and by maintaining their names on the Registry for life. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Courtney’s claims as untimely, holding the continuing violations doctrine did not apply to Courtney’s claims even though she seeks prospective removal from the Registry and will be officially reported as a Child Abuser for the rest of her life. The Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with Flynt v. Shimazu, 940 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2019), Tearpock-Martini v. Borough of Shickshinny, 756 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2014), Kunhle Brothers, Inc v. County of Geauga, 103 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 1997), and Knight v. Columbus, 19 F.3d 579 (11th Cir. 1994). Four questions are presented:

1. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err when it affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Courtney’s § 1983 claim was barred by the statute of limitations?

2. Does a separate discrete injury to a protected interest accrue anew every day the State of Hawai‘i maintains a central registry officially designating a