Doe v. Reed

Background

Jane Doe brought a civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides remedies for certain crime victims. She alleged that Reed sexually assaulted her multiple times in the Philippines between September and December 2007, when she was 14 years old. She alleged that she became pregnant as a result and gave birth to Reed’s child at age 15; DNA testing allegedly confirmed that Reed was the biological father.

Reed pleaded guilty in a related federal criminal case to engaging in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign place under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c). He received a 72-month prison sentence followed by 15 years of supervised release. Doe sought the remedies available under § 2255, including actual damages and litigation costs and attorney’s fees.

Defendant’s Arguments

Reed’s motion was titled as a motion for summary judgment and dismissal, but the court treated it as seeking dismissal under several threshold rules. First, Reed argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Doe had not sufficiently alleged that the sexual conduct would have violated the relevant federal criminal statute if it had occurred within the United States’ special maritime and territorial jurisdiction. The court stated that Reed’s criminal conviction was not necessary for Doe to pursue civil damages under § 2255. The court also declined to address Reed’s diversity-jurisdiction argument because the case presented a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Reed also argued that the criminal case’s $6,000 restitution order barred Doe’s civil action under claim preclusion or issue preclusion. The court rejected that argument. It explained that Doe had not previously sued under § 2255 and had not been a party to, or legally aligned with a party in, Reed’s criminal proceeding. The criminal restitution order therefore did not bar this action.

Finally, Reed argued that the shorter six-year limitations period in effect before a 2013 amendment should apply because the alleged assaults occurred in 2007. The court applied the 10-year period then provided by § 2255, measured from when the victim reached age 18, and found Doe’s claim timely based on her allegation that she was 27 when she filed the case. The court also concluded that applying the longer period would not create a manifest injustice. In addition, it stated that equitable tolling—an extension of a filing deadline when fairness requires it—would apply even if the six-year period governed, because Doe lived abroad and did not begin residing in the United States until 2017.

Ruling

The court denied Reed’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 20]. The opinion did not enter judgment on Doe’s civil claim or decide the amount of any damages. Judge Michael J. Davis signed the memorandum opinion and order on May 26, 2021.