Mills v. City of Covina

• Decision Date: 24 April 2019
• Docket Number: No. 17-56343,17-56343
• Citation: 921 F.3d 1161
• Parties: James MILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF COVINA, a California Municipal Corporation; Kim Raney, in his official capacity as the Chief of the City of Covina Police Department; Terrance Hanou, Officer; Does, 1–100, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

921 F.3d 1161

James MILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.CITY OF COVINA, a California Municipal Corporation; Kim Raney, in his official capacity as the Chief of the City of Covina Police Department; Terrance Hanou, Officer; Does, 1–100, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56343

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2019 Pasadena, California

Filed April 24, 2019

Joseph M. Adams (argued), Adams & Pham APC, Costa Mesa, California; Thomas H. Schelly and Kevin A. Lipeles, Lipeles Law Group APC, El Segundo, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Trisha E. Newman (argued), Tony M. Sain (argued), and Andrea K. Kornblau, Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges.

R. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

We consider whether the statute of limitations for a criminal defendant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is tolled under California Code of Civil Procedure § 356 during the pendency of an appeal from a conviction, in light of the Supreme Court’s rule in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The district court held that § 356 does not toll Appellant James Mills’s § 1983 claims and thus, all but two of Mills’s claims are time-barred. Because Heck did not legally prevent Mills from filing his § 1983 claims during his criminal appeal, we agree with the district court. We also find Mills’s remaining claims were properly dismissed, not because those claims are barred by collateral estoppel, but because reversal of Mills’s conviction was not a favorable termination. We therefore affirm.

I

On April 14, 2013, Covina Police Department Officer Terrance Hanou pulled Mills over for a traffic stop after seeing Mills exit a hotel and drive to another hotel. Hanou claimed he pulled Mills over because his vehicle registration was expired. Mills alleges Hanou noticed Mills "for no reason other than his physical appearance—large framed, bald headed, Caucasian," and that when Hanou checked Mills’s vehicle license, the database showed the registration was current.

Hanou acknowledged Mills’s registration was valid but asked to search Mills’s car. Mills refused. Hanou then made two calls to his supervisor and asked Mills if there were any weapons in the vehicle. Mills informed Hanou of an unloaded shotgun in the cargo compartment.

Hanou requested that Mills exit the vehicle and Mills complied. Hanou immediately handcuffed Mills, conducted a pat down search, and found $10,000 cash on Mills’s person. Hanou then searched Mills’s vehicle and found the shotgun and an additional $7,000 cash. After the search, Hanou arrested Mills claiming he found illegal drugs and "a smoking device" in Mills’s vehicle.

Prior to Mills’s criminal trial, Mills moved to suppress evidence of the alleged drugs, arguing Hanou’s search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The California Superior Court denied the motion. At trial, Hanou testified he found drugs during the search. Mills testified "there were no drugs in his vehicle," "there was evidence that the drugs were planted," and Mills’s counsel closed by stating, "Mr. Mills did not have drugs in his car. Those drugs were planted, and he’s not guilty." On June 6, 2014, Mills was convicted of one count of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and one count of possession of a smoking device and was sentenced to eighteen months’ probation.

On March 3, 2016, the California Court of Appeal overturned Mills’s conviction. The Court of Appeal held, in an unpublished opinion, that Hanou violated Mills’s Fourth Amendment rights by searching the vehicle without probable cause and therefore, the Superior Court erred by denying Mills’s suppression motion. Because "[t]he methamphetamine Hanou recovered from the center console and the methamphetamine and methamphetamine pipe he recovered from the luggage formed the evidentiary basis for [Mills’s] convictions in th[e] case," the Court of Appeal held that further proceedings below would be an "idle gesture," and remanded for dismissal.

On September 22, 2016, Mills filed this suit against the City of Covina, Covina Police Chief Kim Raney, and Hanou, alleging, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims for: (1) unlawful stop and detention, (2) false arrest, (3) false imprisonment, (4) malicious prosecution, (5) failure to screen and hire properly, (6) failure to train properly, (7) failure to supervise and discipline, and (8) Monell municipal liability against the City of Covina. The district court dismissed all but Mills’s § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution and the related Monell claim as time-barred. The district court held that Heck "did not bar [Mills] from filing his claims while he was subject to a criminal prosecution," and thus, California Code of Civil Procedure § 356 did not toll his claims during the pendency of his criminal appeal.

Mills filed two amended complaints against only the City of Covina and Hanou (collectively "Appellees") alleging, under § 1983, claims for: (1) malicious prosecution and (2) Monell municipal liability. On August 4, 2017, Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Mills’s amended claims were barred by collateral estoppel or, in the alternative, that Mills failed to establish a favorable termination of his criminal proceedings. The district court held that collateral estoppel barred Mills from relitigating the issue of whether he possessed drugs, and thus, probable cause was conclusively established. The district court did not reach Appellees’ favorable termination argument. Mills now appeals.

II

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal based on the statute of limitations.

Johnson v. Lucent Techs., Inc. , 653 F.3d 1000, 1005 (9th Cir. 2011). We also review de novo the district court’s judgment on the pleadings based on collateral estoppel. Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co. , 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992).

III

A

We begin by determining whether Mills’s § 1983 claims for unlawful stop and detention, false arrest, false imprisonment, failure to screen and hire properly, failure to train properly, and failure to supervise and discipline are time-barred. The parties and the district court agree that those claims accrued on April 14, 2013, when the search was conducted and Mills was arrested. That is correct. "[T]he accrual date of a § 1983 cause of action is a question of federal law ...." Wallace v. Kato , 549 U.S. 384, 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007). "[A]ccrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action, ... that is, when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief." Id. (internal citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted).¹ Mills had complete and present causes of action for all but his malicious prosecution and Monell liability claims when he was subjected to a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and was arrested; therefore, those claims accrued at that time.

Next, to determine whether the statute of limitations ran on Mills’s claims, we "apply [California’s] statute of limitations for personal injury actions, along with [California’s] law regarding tolling, including equitable tolling, except to the extent any of these laws is inconsistent with federal law." Canatella v. Van De Kamp , 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions thus applies to Mills’s claims. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 ; Canatella , 486 F.3d at 1132–33.

Mills filed his claims on September 22, 2016, roughly three years and five months after the search and arrest. His claims would therefore be time-barred absent tolling. The parties agree that California Government Code § 945.3 tolled the statute of limitations during Mills’s criminal proceedings in the Superior Court, but not during his criminal appeal. The parties also agree that, but for additional tolling, the statute of limitations elapsed during Mills’s criminal appeal. Mills, however, argues that California Code of Civil Procedure § 356 tolled the statute of limitations during the pendency of his criminal appeal because he was legally prevented from bringing those claims during that period by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck . We disagree.

Under § 356, "[w]hen the commencement of an action is stayed by injunction or statutory prohibition, the time of the continuance of the injunction or prohibition is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action." As Appellees argue, a judicially created bar to commencing an action appears to fall outside § 356 based on its plain language. The California Supreme Court, however, has explained that § 356"has been applied in situations where the action is legally prohibited by other means than injunctions or statutory prohibition." Hoover v. Galbraith , 7 Cal. 3d 519, 526, 102 Cal.Rptr. 733, 498 P.2d 981 (1972) (collecting cases). Indeed, while the California Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the impact of a judicially created bar on § 356, it has held "that the running of the statute of limitations is suspended during any period in which the plaintiff is legally prevented from taking action to protect his rights." Dillon v. Bd. of Pension Comm’rs of City of Los Angeles , 18 Cal. 2d 427, 431, 116 P.2d 37 (1941) ; see also Hoover , 7 Cal. 3d at 526, 102 Cal.Rptr. 733, 498 P.2d 981 (confirming that "[t]he limitation period has been tolled during the period in which a plaintiff is legally prevented from taking action to protect his rights"). We are bound by this interpretation. See Lewis v. Tel. Emps. Credit Union , 87 F.3d 1537, 1545 (9th Cir. 1996) ("When interpreting state law, federal courts are bound by decisions of the state’s highest court.") (internal quotation marks omitted).

Notably, however, in Hoover and each case it discussed, a definitive bar to commencing...