Young v. Wenger

Background

China Young sued Antioch police officers Devon Wenger and Erik Nilsen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated her Fourth Amendment rights through excessive force and illegal entry. She also named the City of Antioch and Does 1–50 as defendants. The claims arose from an October 20, 2019 incident at the home of China Young’s sister, Claudjanae Young. China Young alleged that Wenger rushed toward her while she attempted to record how her sister was being treated, grabbed her, and slammed her back and the back of her head into a parked car.

Claudjanae Young filed the original action on May 31, 2023. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 21, 2023, adding China Young’s claims. Wenger and Nilsen moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that China Young’s claims were untimely. The City of Antioch filed a notice joining that motion.

Statute of Limitations and Tolling

The parties agreed that the claims were subject to a two-year limitations period and that China Young filed more than two years after the October 20, 2019 incident. The dispute concerned whether California or pandemic-related tolling rules extended the deadline.

China Young claimed tolling for several periods: three days of incarceration after the incident; 25 days following her misdemeanor arrest; 178 days under California’s pandemic-related Emergency Rule 9; the period during which criminal proceedings were pending; and three to five months of incapacity after a February 11, 2021 car accident. She also argued that overlapping tolling periods should be added consecutively rather than counted only once.

The court rejected tolling based on incapacity. It explained that California’s statutory incapacity tolling rule requires the incapacity to exist when the claim accrued. China Young’s alleged incapacity began after the October 2019 incident, so that rule did not apply. The court also declined to extend federal equitable tolling, which can apply when a defendant’s wrongful conduct or extraordinary circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control made timely filing impossible. The court found no conduct by these defendants that prevented China Young from filing or working with her attorneys.

The court held that overlapping tolling periods should run concurrently under the circumstances presented. In particular, China Young could not count the period covered by Emergency Rule 9 and the overlapping period during which her criminal charges were pending as separate, consecutive extensions. The court noted that China Young had not cited a case requiring overlapping statutory tolling periods to be counted consecutively.

Disposition

Using the calculations presented by defendants, and giving China Young credit for the claimed tolling following her arrest and release but not for incapacity, the court calculated 731 days under the original limitations period, plus 654 days of tolling. That produced a filing deadline of August 5, 2023. Because China Young filed on August 21, 2023, the court found her claims untimely and barred by the statute of limitations.

Judge Susan Illston granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order resolved China Young’s claims on limitations grounds rather than deciding the merits of her excessive-force or illegal-entry allegations.