WPC q khVͼmX$4 uAQGe͹87[DuULщi;ÞNI󥔧 lgo2 xnPxF`@?qR߱f\WSO563>:o!ȯEI".'k^_ YZC1'cʰwxlƤQfc+{(ճjnXp:dU Nzuΰޠ} }:ӂ rԙ%T[= 5nI16΄(j106ǻEI?ܙWei20Dٿ ho:F7.`h!|d <:b:%_} OYo<siL߇8U1x\ecZ@Dr_P4|A[b   S`uuuuuuuu BHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2#$ !XBXXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(A Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regulark0s P/0?,}backup3|x TABLE AU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- -\( 9Z+&Courier Regular #$XWXXX      2    _Neitheroftheparties'briefstothedistrictcourtre  framedtheissue.   #$XWXXX      3    _Thus,thiscasedoesnotraisetheissueofwhetherMainelaw  wouldconsideraswithinitstollingstatuteacaseinwhichthe  tortitselfdrovethepersonmentallyillwheretheplaintiffhad \ notbeenmentallyillbefore.  #$XWXXX      1    _TheMagistrateJudgehadstayedwithintheframeworkcreated  bycounselandrecommendeddismissalofthecaseonlimitations  groundsonadifferenttheorythantheoneofferedbythedistrict \ court.   ' Turner0Turner .    V #$XWXXX      4    _Thiscaseisnoteventheusualcaseofalatefilingby  counselraisingtheissueofexcusableneglect;therewasno  neglectatallbyplaintiff'scounsel. d !XWXXX  _=WXXdd==WXdXXd=TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! XXXXW v~X X     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals { v~  FortheFirstCircuit   { XWX   A') ` dE< ` A      `     h No.032086 K  @ KRISTINDOUGLAS,a/k/aTinaBethMartin,  G  @ Plaintiff,Appellant,   @tt)v. O    @@$ $ YORKCOUNTY;YORKCOUNTYSHERIFF'SDEP'T; K  UNKNOWNDEFENDANTSDEPUTYSHERIFFS, ! @Defendants,Appellees. } A') ` dE<(` A )y    @ YORKCOUNTYSHERIFF, ^ Defendant.   A') ` dE<e` A f   @@APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT K FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE !q @ [Hon.D.BrockHornby,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<x` A y! @'Before ^ #   @@((Selya,CircuitJudge,  "Z% Stahl,SeniorCircuitJudge,and "0& Lynch,CircuitJudge. #' A') ` dE<7&` A 8&!*       ThomasF.Hallettforappellant. 'm",   MichaelJ.Donlan,withwhomVerrill&Dana,LLPwasonbrief, 'C#- forappellees. ($. *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  K+&1K+& |  SI+&2 @38056@S March11,2004 ,'4  RHC[-(5" @38056 @ R ," +&6 ? ,* ! XXX XW X X  8WXXdd8*,X` XX* ` # {   #{   {#XWX { #LYNCH,CircuitJudge .KristinDouglasbroughtacivil  rightsactioninMay2002allegingthatshewasgangrapedover x thirtyyearsearlier,atagetwentyone,whileshewasincarcerated $t foratrafficviolationintheYorkCountyJailinMaine. Hersuit   claimedthatatrusteeprisonerwhohadkeystohercellentered |  thecell,rapedher,andthenletinotherprisonerstothecell ( x  whoalsorapedher.  $   ` Facedwiththeobviousquestionaboutwhyshehadwaited   solongtobringsuit,Douglasarguedthatshehadsufferedfrom ,|  pervasivementalillnessforyearsandthatthestatuteof ( limitationswastolledunderMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.14,853.  Thatstatuteprovides: 0 Ifapersonentitledtobringanyoftheactionsunder , sections752to754,includingsection752-C,andunder  sections851,852andTitle24,section2902isaminor,  mentallyill,imprisonedorwithoutthelimitsofthe ^ UnitedStateswhenthecauseofactionaccrues,the 4 actionmaybebroughtwithinthetimeslimitedherein  Z afterthedisabilityisremoved. 0  ` Thedefendantsmovedforsummaryjudgmentonlimitations   grounds.TocounterDouglas'sclaimthatshehadbeenmentallyill 8!" withinthemeaningof853,thedefendantspresentedanaffidavit "4$ fromtheirexpert,Dr.CarlyleVoss,apsychiatrist,whohad $& examinedDouglasandreviewedrecordsthatDouglashadprovided.  <&!( VossconcludedthatDouglasfulfilledthecriteriaforpost '8#* traumaticstressdisorder(PTSD)dueprincipallytochildhoodabuse )$, andneglect. Nonetheless,Dr.Vossdeterminedthat"[s]incethe @+&. allegedrapesin1971,Ms.Douglas'spsychologicaldisordershave  notresultedinaninabilitytofunctioninsocietyinawaythat \ preventedherfromprotectingherlegalrights."Thissametheme X wasrepeatedinDr.Voss'sreplyaffidavittotheaffidavit   submittedbytheplaintiff'sexpert: `  ItismyopinionthatMs.Douglas'psychological  \  disorders,didnotandwouldnot,havecontinuously  2  precludedherfrombringingalawsuitforthealleged   rapesaftertheyoccurredin1971.    <JX ` Inresponsetothemotionforsummaryjudgment,Douglas :  supportedhercontentionthatshewaswithinthetollingstatute 6 withanaffidavitfromanexpertpsychiatrist,Dr.DianeSchetky.  Dr.Schetkyisboardcertifiedinpsychiatryandforensic > psychiatry,hasqualifiedasanexpertinnumeroussexualabuse : cases,andperformsforensicpsychiatricevaluationsfortheState  ofMaine.SheevaluatedDouglasonthreeoccasionsandreviewed B themedical,psychological,andpsychiatricreportsofDouglas's > formerdoctorsandofDr.Voss.Becausetheresolutionofthis  appealturnsonthecontentoftheSchetkyaffidavit,wequoteit F ! atsomelength: !B#  (5h83! !5.KristinDouglassuffersfromaBiPolarDisorderwith #% acurrentdepression,PostTraumaticStressDisorder,and t$& MixedPersonalityDisorder,withborderline,dependent J% ' andantisocialfeatures.Shehasreceivedvarious  &p!( medicationsovertheyears,andiscurrentlybeing &F") prescribedWellbutrinandProzac,forantidepressant '#* medications. (#+ 0 `  ` `  6.Ms.Douglasgrewupinachaotic,highly N*%- dysfunctionalfamilyinwhichsheexperiencedphysical, $+t&. emotionalandsexualabuse,frequentrejectionand +J'/ emotionalneglect.Inaddition,shehadfrequentchanges  inresidenceandschoolsandwasexposedtosome  antisocialbehaviorwithinherhome,aswell.Shelacked \ stabilityandfamilysupportasaresultofwhich,she 2 failedtodevelopcopingskillsandwasillequippedto X dealwiththebadhandfatehaddealttoher.Chronic . depressionfurtherlimitedherabilitytoreachher   potentialorassertherself.   0 `  ` `  7.Herresponsetotherapes,likemanyvictims,wasto 6   blameherself.Herlowselfesteem,shame,guiltand  \  fearcontributedtoherdifficultytakinganyactionat  2  thetimeoftherapes.Herfamily'srejectionandblame   furthercontributedtoherinabilitytotakeaction.Her   traumawascompoundedbyherpregnancyandtraumatic d  abortion.Lefttoherowndevices,sheappearstohave :  dissociatedatthetimeshestolethegunandcarandwas `  notfullyawareofheractions.Shethentriedtocope 6 withtherapesbyselfblame,distancingherself,   avoidance,repression,andbyinternalizingherrage.  Thisfurtherfueledherdepression.Shewentonto h developtypicalsignsofPostTraumaticStressDisorder > relatedtotherapesincludingemotionalnumbing, d intrusivesymptoms,arousalandhypervigilanceand : difficultywithtrust.  8.Shehasattemptedtocopebybecomingdependantupon l otherwomen.Theserelationshipshavebeenfraughtwith B difficultyowingtoherneediness,herfearofrejection, h herrage,anddifficultysustainingrelationships.Itis > myimpressionthatonlyrecently(2000),withthehelpof  treatmentforherdepressionandPostTraumaticStress  Disorder,hasshebeenstrongenoughtocontemplate p  bringingalawsuitfortherapes.Thisisabravestep F ! onherpartwhichrequiresrevisitingthetraumaandher !l" rageandoneshecouldnothavetakenpriortofinding !B# thesupportiverelationshipsheisnowinandbeingamong "$ peoplewhovalidatehertraumaticexperiencesanddonot #% blameherforthem. t$& 0 `  ` `  9.Itisalsomyopinionthatfromayoungage,  &p!( certainlyasachild,asaresultoftheabusivefamily &F") upbringingimposeduponMs.Douglas,shehasbeen,and '#* continuestobe,mentallyill.Itisalsomyopinion (#+ thatasaresultofthismentalillness, and the x)$, exacerbationoftherapesinflicteduponherattheYork \*%- CountyJail,thatMs.Douglashasbeenatallpertinent 2+&. times,sufferingfroman"overallinabilitytofunction ,X'/ insocietythatpreventsplaintiff[s]fromprotecting  [her]legalrights."ItismyopinionthatMs.Douglas  hasbeenfunctioningatadramaticallylowlevelfora \ personofherobviousintelligence.Shehasexperienced 2 completeemotionalshutdowninthepast,aswellas X sufferedsuicidalideationonaconsistentbasis.Her . emotionalshutdownhasbeensuchthatshehasnotinthe   pasthadtheabilitytointeractonameaningfulbasis   withpeople,oraccessherownfeelings.  `   (emphasisaddedinparagraph9).  j   ` TheopposingexpertaffidavitsbyVossandSchetkyframed   thelegalissueforbothparties.Thedefensearguedinitsmotion r  forsummaryjudgmentthatregardlessofDouglas'spsychological n  diagnosis,shehadfunctionedwellinsocietybothbeforeandafter  1971,whentherapeswereallegedtohavetakenplace.Itasserted v thatDouglaswas"abletoestablishfriendshipsandrelationships,"  "r "secureemploymentandfulfillherresponsibilities"and  "understand,andprotect,herlegalrights"throughoutthattime. z  Thiswassufficient,arguedthedefense,toprecludeDouglasfrom &v tollingthestatuteoflimitationsbecause,underMainelaw,the " term"mentallyill"inMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.14,853# XWXXXW #XWXX XWԀ"refers ~  toanoverallinabilitytofunctioninsocietythatprevents *!z" plaintiffsfromprotectingtheirlegalrights."McAfeev.Cole, "&$ 637A.2d463,466(Me.1994).Inadvancingthisargument,the $& defenseconcededthatDouglashadsufferedfromPTSDinthepast, .&~!( butitdidnotfocusonDouglas'smentalcapacityatthetimeof '*#*  therapes. )$,  ` Douglas,notsurprisingly,respondedtothedefendants'   motionbyarguingthather"undisputed"mentalillness"render[ed] \ [her]unabletodealinanymeaningfulwaywithherlife."  X  ` Despitethisframingoftheissue,thedistrictcourt,on   reviewofamagistratejudge'srecommendeddecision, #  1      ׀changedthe `  focusoftheinquirytowhethertheplaintiffwasmentallyillat  \  thetimeshewasallegedlyraped. #  2      ׀Cf.Dashav.MaineMed.Ctr.,   665A.2d993,994(Me.1995)(suggestingthat853requiresmental d  illnessatthetimeoftheaccrualoftheaction). Thecourtheld `  thattheaffidavitfromDr.Schetky,theplaintiff'sexpert,was   insufficienttoshowthatDouglaswasmentallyillatthattime h becauseofanambiguitythecourtperceivedintheaffidavit'suse d oftheword"and"inparagraph9.Asthedistrictcourtexplained  it: l AreasonablejurycouldnottellfromDr.Schetky's h affidavitwhetherthepsychiatrististestifyingthat > Douglas's"overallinabilitytofunction"preceded"the  exacerbationoftherapes."Theaffidavitcouldmean  thatDouglassufferedtherequisitedegreeofmental p  illnessbeforetherapes(sufficientunderthestatute), F ! orthathermentalillnessreachedthatlevelonly !l" becauseoftherapes(insufficientunderthestatute). !B# BecauseDr.Schetky'saffidavitleavestheevidence,at "$ best,inequipoisewhereDouglashastheburdenofproof, #% Douglasmaynotproceed.  t$& Ї><L<Z<Basedonthisreasoning,thedistrictcourtgrantedthedefendants'  motionforsummaryjudgment. \  ` Douglaspromptlymovedforreconsideration,tenderinga X supplementalaffidavitfromDr.Schetky.Thenewaffidavitmadeit   clear,ifitwasnotalready,thatDr.Schetky'sopinionwas,and `  hadbeenallalong,thatDouglaswasmentallyillwithinthe  \  meaningofthestatuteatthetimeoftherapes #  3      ׀andthattherapes   hadexacerbatedthementalillness. Thedistrictcourtdeniedthe d  motionforreconsiderationandgrantedamotiontostrikeDr. `  Schetky'ssupplementalaffidavit,notingthattheaffidavit"could   easilyhaveprovidedthenecessaryevidence[earlier],butitdid h not,despitetheplaintiff'searlieropportunitiestoreviveitin d lightoftheissuesraised." Thecourtacknowledgedthatthe  defenseexpert,Dr.Voss,did"notstateinhaecverbathatMs. l Douglaswasnotmentallyillatthetimeoftheallegedrape,"but h saidthat"thewholethrustofhisaffidavits...wasthatMs.  Douglashadnevermetthecriteria."  p   ` Therearetwoproblemswiththedistrictcourt'sentryof !l" judgmentforthedefendants.Thefirstconcernsitsinitial "$ summaryjudgmentdecision,whichwereviewdenovo. t$& Rodriguez-Garciav.MunicipalityofCaguas,354F.3d91,96(1st  &p!( Cir.2004).Thedistrictcourtfoundanambiguityinthe  inferencestobedrawnfromSchetky'sexpertaffidavitandruled \ againstDouglasonsummaryjudgmentbecausesheboretheultimate X burdenofproofonthetollingissue.Butonamotionforsummary   judgmentallreasonableinferencesmustbedrawninfavorofthe `  nonmovingparty,regardlessofwhobearstheultimateburdenof  \  proof.SeeRosenbergv.CityofEverett,328F.3d12,17(1stCir.   2003);Rodriguezv.SmithklineBeecham,224F.3d1,5(1stCir. d  2000).Totheextenttherewasanambiguityintheaffidavit,it `  hadtobeconstruedinDouglas'sfavor.Inconstruingthe   inferencesfromtheaffidavitagainstDouglas,thenonmoving h party,thedistrictcourtcommittedlegalerror. d # XWXXXW4#XWXX XW ` ThedistrictcourtalsoerredindenyingDouglas'smotion  forreconsideration.Denialsofsuchmotionsarereviewedonlyfor l abuseofdiscretion.SeeUnitedStatesv.Roberts,978F.2d17,20 h (1stCir.1992).Weconcludethatthisisoneofthoserare  instancesinwhichthedistrictcourtdidabuseitsdiscretion. p   ` Whenfacedwithamotiontoreconsider,thedistrict !l" courtmustapplyaninterestsofjusticetest.Seeid.at21; "$ Greenev.UnionMut.LifeIns.Co.,764F.2d19,23(1stCir. t$& 1985).Itwasclearlynotintheinterestsofjusticetodeny  &p!( reconsiderationhere.Theissue,asframedbythedefendantsand '#* respondedtobytheplaintiff,didnotfocusonwhetherDouglaswas x)$, mentallyillatthetimeoftherapes,butonthequestionwhether $+t&. anyillnesshadprecludedherfrombringingsuitafterthealleged  rapes.ThedefenseexpertneveropinedthatDouglaswasnot \ mentallyillatthetimeoftherapes,and,infact,seemedto X concedethatshesufferedfromPTSDatsomepointbeforetherapes.    ` Despitethefocusofbothparties,thedistrictcourt `  injectedanewissueintothecasewithoutgivingnoticeandan  \  opportunitytorespond.Itwassimplyunfairandanabuseof   discretionforthedistrictcourt,afterhavingswitchedthe d  basicissuewithoutgivingthepartiesadequatewarning,torefuse `  toacceptthepromptprofferofmaterialrelevanttothenewly   raisedissue. #  4      # XWXXXWK#XWXX XWԀThisisespeciallytruehere,whereacorrect h applicationofthesummaryjudgmentstandardtoDr.Schetky'sfirst d affidavitverywellmighthaveobviatedtheneedfora  reconsiderationmotionaltogether.Wehavepreviouslycometothis l sameconclusioninanalogouscasesinwhichitwasclearthata h partywasnotgivenafairopportunitytopresentitsposition.  See,e.g.,Licciardiv.TIGIns.Group,140F.3d357,364(1stCir. p  1998)(districtcourtabuseditsdiscretioninadmittingevidence !l" thatledtoplaintiffbeing"prejudicedbypresentingacase "$ addressedtoonekeyissue,onlytohavedefendantputonacase t$& addressedtoadifferentpredicatekeyissue");ResolutionTrust  &p!( Corp.v.N.BridgeAssocs.,Inc.,22F.3d1198,1200(1stCir. '#* 1994)(rulinginfavorofpartieswhoweredeniedtheopportunity  tofileathirdaffidavitwhentheywere"laidlow...bya \ rabbitpunch").Forsimilarreasons,thiscourthasfoundanabuse X ofdiscretionwhereadistrictcourtrefusedtopermitapartyto   bringitselfintocompliancewithanadmittedlyambiguousLocal `  Rule.SeeUnitedStatesv.Fraya,145F.3d1,4(1stCir.1998).  \   ` Thedefendants,perhapsanticipatingourviews,offer   alternativegroundstodefendentryofjudgmentintheirfavor. d  Theyarguethat,notwithstandingDr.Schetky'saffidavits,the `  evidenceconclusivelyestablishesthatDouglaswasnotsomentally   illthatshecouldnothavebroughtthislawsuitlongbeforeshe h did.Butthedistrictcourtneverreachedthisissue,andwe d declinetodosointhefirstinstance.   `  Reversed and remanded forfurtherproceedingsconsistent l withthisopinion.Costsareawardedtoplaintiff.# XWXXXW?S# 4 AWXXdXdA=WXXdXXd=