Piceno v. Donohue

Background

Sophia Charity Piceno filed this action on February 3, 2026, and later filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). The FAC alleged thirteen causes of action: nine federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and four state-law claims. The defendants who moved to dismiss were the City of Ukiah and Ronald Donohue; the Ukiah Police Department joined the motion.

According to the FAC, Piceno had lived on property in the City of Ukiah for approximately four and a half years. She alleged that Donohue and other city police officers arrested her at least five times on February 2, 2023, for alleged trespassing and unlawful camping, without a valid warrant or probable cause. She also alleged that Donohue used excessive force, caused physical injury, and that defendants seized and towed her personal property. The FAC asserted claims involving unlawful arrests, searches, seizures, force, equal protection, due process, medical care, retaliation, and municipal liability, among others reflected in the opinion.

Federal claims and limitations period

The defendants argued that all federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court applied California’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims to the § 1983 claims. It concluded that the claims accrued when Piceno was arrested and her property was taken, on or about February 2, 2023, because she knew or had reason to know of the alleged injuries then. Piceno filed the action about three years later.

The court rejected Piceno’s arguments that the complaint had been mailed in January 2024, noting that the envelope was postmarked February 3, 2026. It also rejected her argument that participation in a diversion program extended the limitations period under the California provision concerning imprisonment, because the opinion stated that diversion avoids imprisonment and the attached transcript showed she was not in custody in February 2023.

The court further ruled that the continuing-violations doctrine did not save the claims. It characterized the continuing loss of property and legal consequences as continuing effects of the February 2023 conduct, rather than new violations that created later accrual dates. The court therefore held that all nine federal claims were untimely and properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

State-law claims

The defendants also argued that the state-law claims should be dismissed because the FAC did not allege that Piceno timely presented a written claim to the City as required by the California Government Claims Act. The court did not decide that issue. Instead, after dismissing all federal claims at the pleading stage, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s power to hear related state-law claims in the same case.

Disposition

The court held that no amendment could overcome the statute-of-limitations bar. It granted the Motion to Dismiss, dismissed the FAC without leave to amend, and denied all other pending motions as moot. The court stated that a separate judgment would issue.