Johnson v. City of Chico

• Decision Date: 17 November 1989
• Docket Number: No. Civ. S-88-621 LKK.,Civ. S-88-621 LKK.
• Citation: 725 F. Supp. 1097
• Parties: Neal JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICO, Brent McBride, Officer Weber, Officer Williams, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

725 F. Supp. 1097

Neal JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICO, Brent McBride, Officer Weber, Officer Williams, Defendants.

No. Civ. S-88-621 LKK.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

November 17, 1989.

Jay-Allen Eisen, Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff.

Philip B. Price, Price, Price, Brown & Halsey, Chico, Cal., for defendants.

ORDER

KARLTON, Chief Judge.

Once again a confrontation between a citizen and law enforcement officers has given rise to a subtle question relating to the right to bring suit pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The instant question arises in the context of defendants' motion to dismiss premised on the assertion that the time within which to bring suit has expired. Although the question presented is very close, it appears to this court that the motion should be denied. Nonetheless, because reasonable minds could disagree, and this disposition otherwise meets the criteria for interlocutory appeal, the court will certify the question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

I The Complaint And The Motion

Plaintiff commences his well-drafted complaint by explaining that this action for damages is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that accordingly, jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a). Plaintiff also alleges that "the court has pendent jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative facts." Complaint, Jurisdictional Statement.

The operational facts are alleged to be that on December 23, 1982, plaintiff was assaulted by three officers of the Chico Police Department, and that despite his evident physical injury, he was confined in jail without the provision of the medical care he requested. The complaint also alleges that the defendants unjustifiably and without probable cause accused the plaintiff of driving while intoxicated.

Plaintiff next alleges that on March 31, 1983, he filed a claim for damages with the City of Chico pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Tort Claims Act, California Government Code §§ 905, et seq., which was rejected by the City on April 20, 1983. Plaintiff concludes by alleging that "the criminal charges against Mr. Johnson were pending in the municipal court and not finally disposed of until less than 6 months before the filing of this action." Complaint, para. 20.

By virtue of the facts alleged, plaintiff seeks damages under four separate causes of action. He first seeks relief under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and asserts pendent state claims thereto for battery, false arrest and imprisonment, and failure to summon or provide adequate medical care and treatment.

Defendants have moved to dismiss, asserting that the statute of limitations has run on plaintiff's claim.

II

Dismissal Standards Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

On a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081-82, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972). The court is bound to give the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the "well-pleaded" allegations of the complaint. Retail Clerks International Ass'n v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746, 753 n. 6, 83 S.Ct. 1461, 1465 n. 6, 10 L.Ed.2d 678 (1963). Thus, the plaintiff need not necessarily plead a particular fact if that fact is a reasonable inference from facts properly alleged. Id. See also Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 648, 83 S.Ct. 1441, 1443, 10 L.Ed.2d 605 (1963) (inferring fact from allegations of complaint).

In general, the complaint is construed favorably to the pleader. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). So construed, the court may not dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle him or her to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). In spite of the deference the court is bound to pay to the plaintiff's allegations, however, it is not proper for the court to assume that "the plaintiff can prove facts which he or she has not alleged, or that the defendants have violated the ... laws in ways that have not been alleged." Associated General Contractors v. California State Council, 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897, 902, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983).

III Limitations, Tolling & Pendent Jurisdiction

Where Congress has provided a statute of limitations, it governs a federal claim. In the absence of a congressionally determined limitations period, federal courts adopt and apply local statutes applied to like causes of action by the state courts. Russell v. Todd, 309 U.S. 280, 60 S.Ct. 527, 84 L.Ed. 754 (1940). In Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985), the Supreme Court taught that the statute of limitations for a civil rights action brought under § 1983 is drawn from the general state statute of limitations governing personal injury actions.

Section 340(3) of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides for a one-year limitations period for personal injury actions, and has been held to be the relevant statute of limitations for § 1983 actions brought in California. Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir. 1987). Because the Wilson decision significantly reduced the limitations period held applicable under pre-Wilson Ninth Circuit decisions, in Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir.1986), the circuit held that Wilson would not be applied retroactively to claims that had been filed prior to its effective date. The following year, the court extended Gibson, holding that causes of action that arose before Wilson was decided, but which were not filed until afterward, would not be subject to the one-year limitations period if application of this rule would effectively bar the plaintiff's claim. Usher, 828 F.2d at 561. The effect of these cases is that the relevant statute of limitations at its shortest would be one year, and at its longest three years. It is unnecessary to decide which period actually governs, however, since plaintiff's complaint was filed after either period had run.¹

Plaintiff acknowledges that the events in question occurred in December of 1982, and that he filed his complaint in May of 1988. Nonetheless, he denies that the statute of limitations has run. He notes that unless state tolling provisions are inconsistent with the policies underlying the federal statute, they will apply to section 1983 actions. Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 485-86, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1795-96, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980); Donoghue v. County of Orange, 848 F.2d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff characterizes California Government Code § 945.3 (hereinafter "§ 945.3") as a tolling statute, and argues that by virtue of its provisions, he filed within six months of the time permitted and thus the suit is timely.

By its terms, § 945.3 contains two separate provisions. The first portion of the statute imposes a mandatory stay on civil actions for damages against law enforcement officers pending final resolution of the related criminal proceedings. In order to preserve the right to sue during this period, the second part of the statute tolls "any applicable statute of limitations" while the administrative and criminal proceedings are pending.² The question that is tendered by the instant litigation is whether the tolling provision of § 945.3 is applicable to a suit brought pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

No Ninth Circuit case directly construes the statute,³ and only two district court cases have been reported. In Guzman v. Van Demark, 651 F.Supp. 1180 (C.D. Cal. 1987), the court noted that § 945.3 tolled plaintiff's state claims, but did not discuss its effect on his concurrent federal claims, id. at 1189 n. 17; however, in a recent case, Judge Rea has held that the statute did not toll claims arising under section 1983. Mangels v. City of Orange, 678 F.Supp. 1452, 1455 (C.D.Cal.1988).

To prevail plaintiff must overcome two major arguments; first that the statute is irrelevant to claims brought under section 1983, and second, that even if the statute were otherwise applicable, it should not be applied because its provisions are inconsistent with the purposes of the federal statute. Both arguments are not without merit. As I explain below, however, considerations pertaining to the power of federal courts to entertain pendent state claims coupled with principles of constitutional adjudication require me to find that the statute permits a plaintiff to delay filing his federal damages claim until he may file his cognate state claims.

I begin by examining the argument supporting the notion that § 945.3 is irrelevant to plaintiff's claim.

A. The Applicable Statute of Limitations

California has two statutes of limitation which are potentially applicable to this suit. California Government Code § 945.6 (hereinafter "§ 945.6") provides that where a plaintiff sues a governmental entity, the limitations period is either six months or two years, depending on the manner in which the plaintiff's administrative claim was rejected. The California residual statute of limitations for personal injury actions, California Code of Civil Procedure § 340(3) (hereinafter "§ 340(3)"), on the other hand, provides a one-year limitations period.

It is now established that where state law provides multiple statutes of limitation for personal injury actions, courts considering § 1983 claims must borrow the general or residual statute for personal injury actions. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. ___, ___, 109 S.Ct. 573, 582, 102 L.Ed.2d 594, 606 (1989). Under Owens, then, it is clear that § 340(3) governs. The issue underlying the matter at bar, however, is whether the limitations...