John Doe Bf v. Diocese Of Gallup

2011 Navajo Sup. LEXIS 16 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P filed a Complaint for Personal Injuries Charles Cichanowicz (Cichanowicz) on November 6, 2007. On November 13, 2007, P filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging damages resulting from negligence and other misconduct arising from 2 incidents of sexual abuse in 1984-85 when P was a teenager and Cichanowicz was his parish priest. P named as defendants the Diocese of Gallup (Diocese), the Franciscan Friars of St. John the Baptist a/k/a the Franciscan Missionary Union of the Province of St. John the Baptist (Baptist Order) and Franciscan Friars Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe a/k/a the Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe of the Order of Friars Minor, Inc. (Guadalupe Order). P alleged that as a 14-15-year-old child, he had been sexually molested by Cichanowicz, a priest, 'on the Navajo reservation' after being given alcohol by Cichanowicz, Cichanowicz threatened P with exposure if he told anyone about the abuse. P asserts that the Diocese, Baptist Order and Guadalupe Order aided and encouraged Cichanowicz in the abuse by transferring him when he was caught sexually abusing children, continuing to assign him to parishes with unsupervised access to children, failing to report his wrongful conduct to authorities and the public, and in having no system in place to supervise priests, such as Cichanowicz, to ensure that no minors were abused in their care. The complaint was filed after more than twenty years had passed. P claimed he did not discover that he had been injured by the abuse, the injuries did not manifest themselves in a psychological and objective manner and were not ascertainable to him, and due to the nature of the injuries, it was not possible for him to connect the symptoms and injuries to the acts of abuse before then. P served interrogatories and no one responded. Cichanowicz filed an answer and a motion to dismiss. Cichanowicz claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case involving him as a nonmember defendant because P had failed to plead sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction under both Navajo Nation law and the test for civil jurisdiction provided under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1980). Cichanowicz also argued under Rule 12(b)(6) that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. P filed his Second Amended Complaint to include a statement of P's Navajo Nation enrollment status. Cichanowicz renewed his motion to dismiss. Both the Baptist Order and the Guadalupe Order joined in the Motion and further moved for a protective order and stay of discovery. Following the hearing, P filed a motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint. Without ruling on this Motion, the district court issued an Order to Dismiss in that P had failed to file his action within the required statute of limitations period. It held that P 'did not present any testimony or evidence other than what he himself stated' and 'did not even appear himself to give the Court an explanation' for his failure to filed within the statute of limitations. P appealed.