Tolbert v. Antioch Police Department

Background

Joel Tolbert, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants named in the operative complaint were the Antioch Police Department, its Chief Allan Cantando, Officers James Colley and James Perkinson, and the Contra Costa County Detention Health Service.

The complaint asserted four types of claims: Colley and Perkinson allegedly used excessive force during Tolbert’s January 28, 2015 arrest; the Antioch Police Department was allegedly responsible because of a widespread practice of excessive force; Cantando allegedly failed to train, supervise, and discipline officers and failed to correct that practice; and the Contra Costa County Detention Health Service allegedly provided inadequate medical care.

The parties disagreed about what happened during the arrest and the extent of the force, resistance, and injuries. The court did not decide those factual disputes because it resolved the motion on the timeliness of the claims.

Timeliness and equitable tolling

The court had previously determined that Tolbert’s claims were subject to a two-year statute of limitations and that incarceration extended the limitations period until January 28, 2019. Because Tolbert did not file this lawsuit until 2022, the claims were untimely unless equitable tolling applied. Equitable tolling can pause a filing deadline when a person reasonably and in good faith pursues another legal remedy, provided the defendant received timely notice, would not be prejudiced in defending the later claim, and the person acted reasonably and in good faith.

Tolbert relied on a May 2015 California government tort claim and a June 2016 claim that he said he delivered to the Antioch Police Department and the California Department of General Services. The court held that filing a California government tort claim does not equitably toll the limitations period for a federal § 1983 claim because state tort claims and federal civil-rights claims are based on different legal wrongs.

The court further held that, even if such a claim could toll the deadline, the evidence did not create a triable issue about prior notice. The evidence showed at most that the claims were delivered to the police department, not to the city clerk, secretary, auditor, or governing body as required by California law. The city clerk’s office had no record of receiving Tolbert’s claims. The court also found that the May 2015 claim concerned a single use of force and did not identify the widespread practice alleged against the police department, while the evidence did not show that either claim named the police department or the City of Antioch as responsible parties in a way that provided the required notice. There was also no evidence that Colley, Perkinson, or Cantando received or learned about the claims.

Rulings

The court concluded there was no triable issue that Tolbert was entitled to equitable tolling or that his claims against the Antioch Police Department, Colley, Perkinson, and Cantando were timely. It therefore granted those defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The court denied Tolbert’s motion for default judgment against the Contra Costa County Detention Health Service. That defendant had not been served by the earlier response deadline and had only been served on December 6, 2024, so it had not failed to respond.

Next steps ordered by the court

The court ordered the Contra Costa County Detention Health Service to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion by March 5, 2025. Tolbert’s opposition was due April 4, 2025, and the defendant’s reply was due April 18, 2025. The order states that it resolves docket numbers 81 and 124.