Alaniz v. Enterline 3821

Background

Adrian Alaniz filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated at Avenal State Prison and representing himself. He alleged that San Jose Police Department officers Kevin Enterline and Kirby unlawfully stopped and searched him and the car in which he was riding on August 7, 2012, and used excessive force in arresting him. He sought $7 million in damages. The court had previously found that the complaint stated Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful search and seizure and excessive force.

Alaniz was convicted of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1). The state appellate division later vacated the conviction and sent the case back for further proceedings. After a state judge granted Alaniz’s motion to suppress, set aside the guilty verdict, and dismissed the case on October 8, 2014, Alaniz filed this federal action on September 12, 2018.

Defendants’ Motion and Alaniz’s Arguments

The defendants moved to dismiss the action as barred by the statute of limitations, which is the deadline for filing a lawsuit. They argued that both claims accrued on August 7, 2012, when the alleged events occurred, and that the two-year deadline expired on August 7, 2014.

Alaniz argued that the deadline should be extended through statutory tolling and equitable tolling. Statutory tolling pauses a filing deadline under a statute; equitable tolling can pause it when fairness requirements are met. He argued that he did not know he could bring a § 1983 action, believed he could not sue until released from prison, could not file until his motion to suppress was granted, and had acted diligently. He also referred to his government tort claim against the City of San Jose.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied California’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims to the § 1983 claims. It presumed, for purposes of the motion, that Alaniz qualified for statutory tolling based on his imprisonment and that the criminal charges were pending from his arrest through his conviction. Even with those assumptions, the court determined that the search-and-seizure claim’s deadline expired on August 7, 2016, before Alaniz filed this action.

The court rejected equitable tolling for the search-and-seizure claim. It found that Alaniz’s government tort claim showed he knew about the alleged unlawful search and seizure and excessive force by October 16, 2013. The court concluded that the nearly five-year delay between that claim and the federal action prejudiced the defendants and did not show reasonable, good-faith conduct. The court also stated that lack of knowledge of the law and uncertainty about the officers’ identities did not justify equitable tolling; a plaintiff may sue unidentified defendants initially.

For the excessive-force claim, the court applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, which generally prevents a damages claim that would imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction until that conviction has been overturned or otherwise invalidated. Because success on Alaniz’s excessive-force claim would imply that his § 148(a)(1) conviction was invalid, the court determined that the claim accrued when the state case was dismissed on October 8, 2014. Even after presuming the possible statutory and equitable tolling periods, the court concluded that the deadline expired no later than September 2, 2017—about one year before Alaniz filed suit.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as time-barred. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against Alaniz, and stated that the order terminated the motion identified as Docket No. 18. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.