## Facts

- John Doe BF, a Navajo Nation member, alleged that when he was 14–15 years old and living on the Navajo reservation, a Catholic priest gave him alcohol and sexually abused him.
- Doe alleged the priest threatened to expose him if he told anyone about the abuse.
- Roughly twenty years later, Doe sued the Diocese of Gallup and two related entities identified as the Baptist Order and the Guadalupe Order.
- Doe alleged the defendants helped allow the abuse to occur and continue because they failed to act after the priest was caught molesting children, did not report him, and instead transferred him to other parishes.
- Doe alleged the priest was repeatedly placed in settings where he had unsupervised access to children and that the defendants did not put effective safeguards in place to prevent further abuse.
- To explain why he did not sue earlier, Doe submitted an affidavit stating that latent psychological components of his injuries prevented him from discovering the injuries and connecting them to the abuse until 2007.
- Doe also submitted journal articles addressing psychological effects reported among sexually abused Indian boys, including withdrawal and isolation within a community setting where social integration is commonly viewed as part of healing.
- The trial court ruled that the statute of limitations barred Doe’s complaint despite Doe’s delayed-discovery explanation.
- Doe appealed from the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a childhood sexual abuse plaintiff’s allegations and supporting materials regarding latent psychological injury and delayed causal discovery can permit delayed accrual (or tolling) so that the claims are not barred by limitations at the pleading stage.
2. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing on limitations grounds without allowing factual development on when Doe discovered, or reasonably could have discovered, the injury and its connection to the alleged abuse and defendants’ conduct.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s limitations-based dismissal.
- The court remanded for further proceedings so the parties could develop facts bearing on delayed discovery and accrual of the claims.

## Legal Principles

- When a plaintiff plausibly alleges that an injury and its causal connection to wrongful conduct were not reasonably discoverable until later, limitations may not be resolved solely on the pleadings.
- In cases alleging childhood sexual abuse and related latent psychological harm, the time of discovery and reasonable diligence can present fact questions not suited to dismissal at the outset.
- A limitations defense may be decided as a matter of law only when the relevant dates and accrual facts are clear and not reasonably disputable from the pleadings and properly considered materials.
- Allegations that institutions failed to report known abuse, transferred an abuser, or left an abuser with unsupervised access to children can support claims whose accrual may depend on when the plaintiff could connect later harm to those acts or omissions.

## Conclusion

John Doe BF v. Diocese of Gallup, No. SC-CV-06-10 (2011) reinstated a childhood sexual abuse suit dismissed as untimely, holding that Doe’s affidavit and related materials alleging latent psychological injury and delayed ability to connect that injury to the abuse and defendants’ alleged misconduct raised accrual questions requiring factual development on remand.
