Tolbert v. Colley

Background

Joel Tolbert, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Antioch Police Department, its chief, Officers James Colley and James Perkinson, and the Contra Costa County Detention Health Service. The opinion states that summonses for the police chief, Officer Perkinson, and the detention health service were returned unexecuted. The motion at issue was filed by the Antioch Police Department and Officer Colley.

Tolbert’s first amended complaint alleged that Colley and Perkinson shot him with a bean bag, beat him, cut him, suffocated him, and threatened to sexually assault him while arresting him at his mother’s house on January 28, 2015, despite his alleged lack of resistance. He also alleged that the Antioch Police Department had a widespread practice of failing to train and supervise officers, resulting in unconstitutional excessive force.

Motion and statute of limitations

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which allows judgment when the pleadings show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court applies the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court also considered the defendants’ request for judicial notice of certified court records, which established that a trial occurred in January 2019 and that Tolbert was sentenced on February 22, 2019.

The court held that the claims against the served defendants accrued on January 28, 2015, when the alleged assault occurred. Section 1983 has no limitations period of its own, so the court applied California’s two-year period for personal-injury claims. Because Tolbert filed this action on March 30, 2022, the court concluded, based on the pleadings, that the claims were untimely.

Tolling

The court considered whether any rule paused or extended the limitations period. California law can toll the period during certain forms of imprisonment, but only for a maximum of two years. Even assuming Tolbert had been continuously incarcerated from January 28, 2015, through the filing of the lawsuit, the court concluded that imprisonment tolling would extend the deadline only to January 28, 2019.

The court also concluded that California Emergency Rule 9 would not help Tolbert. That rule paused certain limitations periods from April 6, 2020, through October 1, 2020, but did not revive claims that had already expired. The court determined that Tolbert’s claims had already lapsed before the rule took effect.

Tolbert argued that equitable tolling should apply because he submitted government tort-claim notices and because police officers allegedly threatened him not to sue. The court stated that equitable tolling may apply when an earlier claim provided timely notice, the defendant was not prejudiced in defending the later claim, and the plaintiff acted in good faith and reasonably. Although the existing allegations did not establish equitable tolling, the court could not conclude that Tolbert would be unable to plead sufficient facts. The court therefore allowed amendment for that limited purpose.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend to attempt to allege a basis for equitable tolling. It did not grant leave to add new claims or defendants. Tolbert was required to file any second amended complaint by June 2, 2023, and the court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case.