any fifth amendment claim resulting from an attempt to use that confession accrued as early as January 2000.”). Hobbs acknowledges this authority but argues that the continuing violation doctrine applies to his claim. “The continuing violation doctrine allows a plaintiff to get relief for a time-barred act by linking it with an act that is within the limitations period. For purposes of the limitations period, courts treat such a combination as one continuous act that ends within the limitations period.” Selan v. Kiley, 969 F.2d 560, 564 (7th Cir.1992). A violation is considered “continuing” if “it would be unreasonable to require or even permit [a plaintiff] to sue separately over every incident of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” Heard v. Sheahan, 253 F.3d 316, 319 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Hobbs argues that his coerced confession was
holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation holding that charging fees for medical services did not violate the eighth amendment where prisoner did not allege denial of medical care holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs holding that an eighth amendment deliberate indifference claim accrued not when the prisoner was denied medical care but when he was released from jail finding that the injuries about which the plaintiff is complaining  are the consequence of a numerous and continuous series of events holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person