Johnson v. City of Pittsburg

Document and posture

This document is a notice of questions for a scheduled hearing, not a final ruling on the claims or motions. The court directed the parties and their attorneys to be prepared to address the listed questions at the April 5, 2021 hearing.

Questions about the filing deadline

The court noted that California’s two-year deadline for personal-injury actions applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. It also noted that California law generally determines whether that deadline is paused, unless applying state law would conflict with federal law.

The notice then described California Emergency Rule 9, enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rule suspended, from April 6, 2020, until October 1, statutes of limitation and repose for civil claims with deadlines longer than 180 days. The court asked whether the defendants disputed that Emergency Rule 9 applied to Johnson’s proposed claims against arresting officer Kyle Dickson. It separately asked whether the proposed claims would be timely if the tolling, or pausing of the deadline, applied.

Question about adding the officer

The court also cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C), which governs when an amended complaint adding a defendant can relate back to the original filing date. The court asked whether Johnson contended that he made a mistake about the arresting officer’s identity when he filed the original complaint, and, if so, what that mistake was.

Court’s action

The court ordered the parties to notify the court and opposing counsel by March 29, 2021, if they intended to rely on legal authorities not previously cited. It stated that it would not accept written answers to the questions and concluded, “IT IS SO ORDERED.” The notice itself does not state a ruling on timeliness, tolling, relation back, or the proposed claims.