O'Neal v. Johnson, 2:14-cv-2374 KJN PS (TEMP)

• Decision Date: 26 February 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2:14-cv-2374 KJN PS (TEMP),2:14-cv-2374 KJN PS (TEMP)
• Parties: SEAN O'NEAL, Plaintiff, v. AUGUST JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

SEAN O'NEAL, Plaintiff, v. AUGUST JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2374 KJN PS (TEMP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

February 26, 2016

ORDER

This matter came before the court on February 4, 2016, for the hearing of defendants County of Sacramento, Anissa Galata and Jan Scully's motion to dismiss plaintiff's eighth amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.¹ Attorney John Whitefleet appeared on behalf of the moving defendants and plaintiff appeared on his own behalf.² The undersigned has fully considered the parties' briefs, the parties' oral arguments, and appropriate portions of the record. For the reasons that follow, the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and this action will proceed as to the remaining defendants subject to the schedule set forth below.

I. Relevant Allegations of the Eighth Amended Complaint

On December 13, 2010, plaintiff arrived in Sacramento aboard a Greyhound bus while carrying 3.75 pounds of marijuana. (8th Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 33) at 8.³) While waiting for another bus plaintiff was notified by a security officer that the officer could smell marijuana. (Id.) Plaintiff presented a valid medical marijuana identification card. (Id.) The security officer informed plaintiff that "they don't except (sic) medical marijuana IDs" and that if plaintiff wanted to remain he "had to consent to a search of [his] luggage." (Id.) Plaintiff left the Greyhound station. (Id. at 9.)

While walking down J Street plaintiff was stopped by defendant Sacramento City Police Officer August Johnson. (Id.) Officer Johnson informed plaintiff that he could smell marijuana. (Id.) Plaintiff provided Officer Johnson with his valid medical marijuana identification card. (Id.) Officer Johnson handcuffed plaintiff, searched plaintiff's luggage, seized his 3.75 pounds of marijuana and arrested plaintiff for violating California Health & Safety Code §§ 11359 and 11360.⁴ (Id. at 10.)

Plaintiff was prosecuted on these charges by defendant Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully and defendant Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney Anissa Galta, who "maliciously withheld exculpatory evidence [of plaintiff's] valid medical marijuana ID . . . ." (Id.) After eight months of incarceration, however, "the District Attorney provided a picture of the . . . valid Medical Marijuana ID," dated 17 days' after plaintiff's arrest. (Id. at 11.) On December 6, 2011, nearly a year after plaintiff's arrest and incarceration, the Sacramento County Superior Court found that officer Johnson's search of plaintiff lacked probable cause, (id. at 9), and plaintiff was released from jail on December 7, 2011. (Id. at 12.) Based on these allegations, plaintiff's eighth amended complaint asserts multiple causes of action for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law causes of action for false arrest and imprisonment, maliciousprosecution and malpractice.

II. Standards for Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the pleadings set forth in the complaint. Vega v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 654 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1109 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Under the "notice pleading" standard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff's complaint must provide, in part, a "short and plain statement" of plaintiff's claims showing entitlement to relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); see also Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts all of the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir. 2007). The court is "not, however, required to accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint, and [the court does] not necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations." Paulsen, 559 F.3d at 1071. The court must construe a pro se pleading liberally to determine if it states a claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an opportunity to cure them if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); accord Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that "pro se pleadings are liberally construed, particularly where civil rights claims are involved"); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that courts continue to construe pro se filings liberally even when evaluating them under the standard announced in Iqbal ).

///// In ruling on a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court "may generally consider only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice." Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Although the court may not consider a memorandum in opposition to a defendant's motion to dismiss to determine the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, see Schneider v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir.1998), it may consider allegations raised in opposition papers in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, see, e.g., Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).

III. Discussion

Defendants' motion argues that all of the claims asserted against the moving defendants, which were asserted for the first time in plaintiff's eighth amended complaint filed July 10, 2015, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. (Defs.' MTD (Dkt. No. 70) at 16-17.) Specifically, defendants argue that plaintiff's claims against them "began running on December 6, 2011, and expired on December 6, 2013." (Id. at 17.)

"A party may raise a statute of limitations argument in a motion to dismiss if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the complaint was not timely filed and that plaintiff will be unable to prove facts that will establish the timeliness of the claim." Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 935 F.Supp.2d 968, 979 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum, 592 F.3d 954, 969 (9th Cir. 2010); Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir. 1995)).

"In determining the proper statute of limitations for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [courts] look to the statute of limitations for personal injury actions in the forum state." Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004). Under California law, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years.⁵ Id.; CAL. CODE CIV PRO. § 335.1. In thisregard, the statutes of limitation for plaintiff's claims against the moving defendants ran no later than December 7, 2013.⁶ See Lopez v. City of Santa Ana, Case No. CV 14-01369 SVW (RAO), 2015 WL 9918408, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2015) ("Here, Plaintiff's arrest occurred on February 5, 2012. Plaintiff was detained as a result of that arrest until April 12, 2012. Plaintiff thus had until April 12, 2014 to pursue his false arrest and imprisonment claims within the limitations period.").

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that these claims are not barred by the applicable statutes of limitation because they "relate[] back" to original complaint filed by plaintiff on September 11, 2012, which was filed well within the period for the applicable statutes of limitation. (Pl.'s Opp.'n (Dkt. No. 74) at 2.) "[B]ecause the limitations period derives from state law, Rule 15(c)(1) requires [the court] to consider both federal and state law and employ whichever affords the 'more permissive' relation back standard." Butler v. National Community Renaissance of California, 766 F.3d 1191, 1201 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Coons v. Indus. Knife Co., 620 F.3d 38, 42 (1st Cir. 2010)).

"Rule 15(c)(1)(C) provides the federal standard for whether a pleading relates back." Butler, 766 F.3d at 1202. When an amended complaint seeks to add a party as a defendant, the amended compliant will relate back to the date the original complaint was filed if the newly named defendant "(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(c)(1)(C); see also Motley v. Parks, 198 F.R.D. 532, 534 (C.D. Cal. 2000).

Rule 15(c)(1)(C), however, also requires that the plaintiff have complied with the service provisions of Rule 4(m). Butler, 766 F.3d at 1202. At the time plaintiff filed his eighth amended complaint, Rule 4(m) required that the defendants have been served with the eighth amended complaint within 120 days after the original complaint was filed. See Butler, 766 F.3d at 1202 ("requirements must have been fulfilled within 120 days after the original complaint is filed"). Here, the moving defendants were not served with notice of this action until many years after the filing of the original complaint. Accordingly, the eighth amended complaint does not relate back to the original complaint under federal law.

With respect to California law, "[a]s...