Mitchell et al v. Culver et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/24/15 ORDERING that the Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed since it was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations period. However, Plaintiffs are granted (14) days from the date on which this order is filed to file a First Amended Complaint addressing the referenced deficiency in their Complaint.(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JACK MITCHELL, JR., and MARJA
MITCHELL,
Plaintiffs,

13

16
17

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
DISMISSAL MOTION

v.

14
15

No. 2:15-CV-00058-GEB-CMK

STEVEN CULVER, individually
and as a Federal Ranger; and
BRIAN J. DENSMORE,
individually and as a Federal
Ranger,
Defendants.

18
19

Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs’

20
21

Complaint

under

22

12(b)(6), arguing, inter alia, that the Complaint is barred by

23

the

24

consists of Fourth Amendment false arrest claims alleged against

25

Federal Rangers under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau

26

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

applicable

statute

Rule

of

of

Civil

limitations.

Procedure

Plaintiffs’

(“Rule”)

Complaint

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

27
28

Federal

The

following

factual
1

allegations

in

the

Complaint

1

concern the dismissal motion.

2

“On

or

about

July 16,

2012[,]

Plaintiffs

Jack

3

Mitchell, Jr. and Marja Mitchell . . . were stopped ostensibly

4

for speeding by [Federal] Rangers and Defendants Steven Culver

5

and Brian J. Densmore on California State Highway 299.” (Compl.

6

¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege they were not speeding, and

7

although

8

traffic stop, Defendants detained and subsequently arrested them

9

for failing to follow a lawful order. (Compl. ¶¶ 3-5, 25-27.)

10

“[N]o speeding charge[s were] ever brought [against Plaintiffs,]

11

and

12

Magistrate Judge Craig Kellison on or about January 8, 2013.”

13

(Compl. ¶ 28.)

all

they

complied

criminal

with

charges

14

were

II.

15

The

applicable

Defendants’

dismissed

commands

in

during

Redding,

CA

the

by

DISCUSSION

statute

of

limitations

in

a

Bivens

16

action is the state’s “personal injury” statute. Van Strum v.

17

Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409-10 (9th Cir. 1991). “[T]he rationale for

18

applying [a state’s] statute of limitations for personal injury

19

[actions] . . . to Bivens actions [is that federal constitutional

20

torts]

21

protecting personal rights.” Id. In California, the limitations

22

period for personal injury actions is two years, since section

23

335.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure prescribes “[a]n

24

action for assault . . . or injury to . . . an individual caused

25

by the wrongful act or neglect of another” shall be commenced

26

within two years.

27
28

come

solely

“Although

from

state

the

provisions

law

determines

of

the

the

Constitution

length

of

the

limitations period, federal law determines when a civil rights
2

1

claim accrues. [A] claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has

2

reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.”

3

Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 926 (9th Cir.

4

2004) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation

5

marks omitted). Defendants argue:

6

Plaintiffs
allege
[Defendants]
falsely
arrested them on July 16, 2012. Therefore,
their . . . claims . . . accrued on July 16,
2012, and the statute of limitations for
filing a false arrest lawsuit expired on
July 16, 2014. On the face of the January 8,
2015 [filed C]omplaint, [P]laintiffs’ false
arrest claims are time-barred, having been
almost six months too late.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(Mem. P.&A. ISO Mot. Dismiss (“Mot.”) 4:13-18, ECF No. 13-1.)
Plaintiffs

agree

that

California

Code

of

Civil

Procedure section 335.1 is “the applicable statute of limitations
period[,]” and that a “false arrest/false imprisonment [claim]
accrues

at

the

time

of

the

arrest.”

(Pls.’

Opp’n

to

Mot.

(“Opp’n”) 3:12-14, ECF No. 16.) However, Plaintiffs argue their
lawsuit was timely filed in light of the tolling provision in
California Government Code section 945.3. “This section prevents
civil

actions

against

peace

officers

from

being

filed

while

criminal charges are pending against the potential plaintiff[s
and] . . . tolls the statute of limitations on the civil actions
until the criminal charges are resolved.” Harding v. Galceran,
889 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs argue:
[Plaintiffs’ criminal] case was dismissed by
the Magistrate in Redding, CA on or about
January 8, 2013. Using Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 6 and [section 945.3], the
complaint had to be filed by January 9, 2015.
This matter was [timely] filed on or about
January 8, 2015.
3

1

(Opp’n 4:2-4.)

2

Defendants reply “that the Ninth Circuit has held that

3

section 945.3 . . . does not apply to federal law enforcement

4

officers like the [Federal] Rangers here.” (Defs.’ Reply ISO Mot.

5

1:26–28, ECF No. 18.)

6
7

California Government Code section 945.3 prescribes in
relevant part:

8

No person charged [with] . . . a criminal
offense may bring a civil action for money or
damages against a peace officer or the public
entity employing a peace officer based upon
conduct of the peace officer relating to the
offense
for
which
the
accused
is
charged . . . while the charges against the
accused are pending before a superior court.
Any applicable statute of limitations for
filing and prosecuting these actions shall be
tolled during the period that the charges are
pending before a superior court.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Cal. Gov. Code ' 945.3 (emphasis added).

16

The

California

Penal

Code

contains

provisions

that

17

define “peace officer.” The provision pertinent to each party’s

18

argument here is California Penal Code section 830.8(c) which

19

states

20

California peace officers . . . .” The Ninth Circuit stated in

21

Matthews v. Macanas, 990 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam),

22

abrogated

23

‘[f]ederal . . .

law

24

peace

although

25

provided that they are engaged in the enforcement of federal

26

criminal law. Because federal officers are not ‘peace officers’

27

section

28

officials.” Id. at 469 (citation omitted).

in

pertinent

on

officers,’

945.3’s

part:

other

“National

grounds:

enforcement

tolling

they

“Under
officers

may

provision

4

park

are

California
are

exercise

does

rangers

not

not

powers

apply

not

law,

California
of

to

arrest

federal

1

Since the Federal Rangers are not “peace officers” as

2

prescribed in section 945.3 Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims

3

are barred by the statute of limitations; in light of Plaintiffs’

4

allegation that they were seized on July 16, 2012, this date is

5

more than two years before Plaintiffs filed their complaint on

6

January 8, 2015. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed

7

since

8

limitations period. However, Plaintiffs are granted (14) days

9

from the date on which this order is filed to file a First

10

Amended Complaint addressing the referenced deficiency in their

11

Complaint.

12

Dated:

it

was

not

filed

within

August 24, 2015

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

the

applicable

statute

of