Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 20, 2025

Brinson v. State of California

Full caption

Brad Brinson v. State of California, California Highway Patrol, Officer P. Santiago, Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services, Joshua Hammack

Judge
Donna Ryu
Docket
4:25-cv-02381
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
7
Motion to DismissCivil ProcedureSection 1983
In one sentence

In Brad Brinson v. State of California, Judge Ryu granted both dismissal motions, dismissed several defendants with prejudice, and allowed amendment of claims against Officer Santiago.

Who this affects

Brad Brinson may amend his claims against Officer P. Santiago. The State of California, the California Highway Patrol, Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services, and Joshua Hammack were dismissed, with the dismissals against those defendants stated to be with prejudice. The discovery request by BAPLS and Hammack was denied as moot.

What happened

In Brad Brinson v. State of California, Brinson alleged that Officer P. Santiago required him to undergo a blood test after a driving-under-the-influence arrest, despite Brinson’s warning that he took an anticoagulant. Brinson sued the State of California, the California Highway Patrol, Santiago, Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services, and Joshua Hammack, asserting federal civil-rights and state-law claims.

The defendants argued that the claims were filed too late. The court ruled that the tolling law Brinson relied on could apply to claims against the State Defendants but not to the civilian laboratory defendants. The court also ruled that the State and the California Highway Patrol could not be sued under the federal civil-rights law at issue, while the State Defendants had waived their challenge to the claims against Santiago by answering an earlier complaint before filing their dismissal motion.

Judge Donna Ryu granted both motions to dismiss. The laboratory defendants were dismissed with prejudice, and the State of California and California Highway Patrol were also dismissed with prejudice. Brinson may file a third amended complaint against Santiago by November 4, 2025, and the court denied the laboratory defendants’ discovery motion as moot.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brinson v. State of California · No. 4:25-cv-02381
Judge
Donna Ryu
Date
Oct. 20, 2025

Background

Brad Brinson filed a second amended complaint against the State of California, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Officer P. Santiago, Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services (BAPLS), and Joshua Hammack. Brinson alleged that Santiago arrested him for driving under the influence on August 28, 2019, and required him to submit to a blood test after he could not take a breath test. Brinson alleged that he told Santiago he was taking an anticoagulant, attempted to refuse the blood draw, and was threatened with jail time and a one-year driver’s-license suspension. He also alleged that Hammack, a BAPLS phlebotomist, did not know whether the blood draw was safe for someone taking anticoagulants.

Brinson asserted six claims: two civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourth Amendment; a § 1983 claim alleging unconstitutional policies, customs, or practices; state-law battery and negligence claims against the laboratory defendants; and a state-law claim for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention against BAPLS.

Motions and statute of limitations

BAPLS and Hammack moved to dismiss the claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The State of California, CHP, and Santiago also moved to dismiss. The defendants argued that all claims were barred by statutes of limitations.

The court stated that § 1983 claims use California’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. It also stated that California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 provides a one-year limitations period for Brinson’s battery, negligence, and negligent-hiring claims against the laboratory defendants. Brinson’s alleged injury occurred on August 28, 2019, but he did not file his complaint until December 7, 2023.

Brinson argued that California Government Code section 945.3 tolled, or paused, the limitations period while his related criminal case was pending. The court held that section 945.3 applies only to claims against a peace officer or the public entity employing a peace officer. Brinson did not show that BAPLS or Hammack fell within that category. The court therefore held that the tolling statute did not apply to the laboratory defendants, granted their motion to dismiss, and dismissed the claims against them with prejudice.

The court reached a different conclusion as to the State Defendants. It found that Brinson could potentially amend his complaint to properly allege tolling as to those defendants and warned that he would not receive another opportunity to properly plead tolling.

Claims against the State Defendants

The State of California and CHP argued that Brinson’s § 1983 claims against them were barred because a state and its agencies are not “persons” who can be sued under that statute. Brinson conceded the point. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the State of California and CHP with prejudice.

Santiago separately argued that Brinson’s constitutional claims against him failed to state a claim. The court did not decide that argument on its merits. The State Defendants had already answered Brinson’s first amended complaint before filing the motion directed at the second amended complaint. The court held that filing an amended complaint did not revive defenses that had already been waived, and that the State Defendants’ arguments could have been raised before they answered. The court therefore held that the State Defendants had waived their Rule 12 challenge to the claims against Santiago.

Disposition

The court granted the laboratory defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed BAPLS and Hammack with prejudice, entered judgment in their favor, and denied their motion to compel discovery as moot. The court granted the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the State of California and CHP with prejudice, and allowed Brinson to file a third amended complaint against Santiago by November 4, 2025. The court continued the case-management conference to February 4, 2026.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.