Walker v. Barrett, et al., No. 10-3225 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff sued his former music teacher, the Logan-Rogersville R-VII School District, and the school principal, asserting nine different claims stemming from the teacher's alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff. At issue was whether the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claims and denying his motion to amend his complaint. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that Counts 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 were time-barred where plaintiff's complaint established that his cause of action accrued in 1992 when he was 15 years old, the statute of limitations was tolled until his 21st birthday, and he had five years, until November 22, 2003, to file his complaint. The court also held that plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title IX were also time-barred where both claims relied on the state's statute of limitations governing personal-injury claims and Missouri imposed a five-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.120.4. For the same reasons, plaintiff's state-law claims were time barred by section 516.120.4. The court further held that the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's childhood sexual abuse claim was affirmed where Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.046 required him to commence his action within five years of his 18th birthday. The court finally held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's sexual abuse claim against the school district and principal and the district court did not err in denying as futile plaintiff's motion to amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil Case - sexual abuse. Because the sexually abusive conduct as alleged in the complaint was sufficient to place a reasonably prudent person on notice of a potentially actionable injury at the time the abuse occurred and victim did not allege he repressed the memories of the abuse, the cause of action accrued in 1992, was tolled until victim turned 21 and ran out on November 22, 2003; thus the state law claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The federal claims are also time-barred. The childhood sexual abuse claims also accrued at the time of the abusive conduct, and the victim was not entitled to the benefit of the revised Missouri statute extending the statute for 10 years. The childhood sexual abuse statute does not apply to nonperpetrator defendants and thus the district court did not err in dismissing the claims against the school district and the principal. Even if the school district and principal could be sued under an aider/abettor or ratification theory, no factual bases were pleaded for such claims. The district court did not err in denying as futile the motion to amend the complaint.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.