Avery v. Arreola

Background

Jeffrey Avery sued Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officers Rafael Arreola, N. Washam, M. Norriega, and R. Martinez, along with unidentified defendants. The second amended complaint alleged that Avery worked for BART when, at about 1:00 a.m. on October 16, 2020, the officers approached him while he was sleeping in his car in a BART parking lot. According to the complaint, the officers ordered him out while pointing firearms at him, handcuffed him, and searched his car without consent. They released him after verifying that he was a BART employee waiting for his shift.

The complaint asserted three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, alleging violations of Avery’s Fourth Amendment rights: false arrest, excessive force, and unlawful search. Avery filed the federal lawsuit on December 16, 2022. The parties agreed that a two-year statute of limitations, meaning a deadline for filing the claims, applied and that the lawsuit was filed outside that period.

Avery argued that the deadline should be extended for two reasons. First, he alleged that depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and related mental incapacity prevented him from making decisions about filing a lawsuit for about six months. Second, he alleged that he filed an administrative complaint with BART that was investigated by the Office of the Independent Police Auditor (OIPA), and that the deadline should be extended for the 298 days between the complaint and OIPA’s findings.

Defendants’ Motion

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims were untimely and that equitable tolling did not apply. Equitable tolling is a legal doctrine that can extend a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances. Defendants also asked the court to take judicial notice of a BART website and a blank OIPA complaint form. Judicial notice permits a court to accept certain facts without requiring formal proof.

Mental-Incapacity Theory

The court held that Avery’s allegations did not meet the standard for tolling based on mental incapacity under California Code of Civil Procedure § 352(a). That provision requires a showing that the plaintiff was unable to care for his property, transact business, or understand the nature or effects of his actions. The court concluded that allegations of despondency, severe depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder that hindered clear thinking did not by themselves meet that standard.

The court also found that the complaint did not clearly state when the alleged incapacity began or ended, or whether it existed when the claims accrued. Avery’s allegation that he filed an administrative complaint in November 2020 also raised questions about the timing of the alleged incapacity. The court therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint regarding the mental-incapacity allegations, with leave to amend.

OIPA Complaint and Equitable Tolling

The court treated Avery’s OIPA argument as an alternative equitable-tolling theory. Under California law, the relevant inquiry includes whether the defendant received timely notice of the first claim, whether the defendant was prejudiced in defending the later claim, and whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and reasonably. The court stated that these issues generally involve the specific facts of the earlier proceeding and are not usually suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss based only on the complaint.

The court was skeptical of Avery’s reading of a California Supreme Court decision concerning equitable tolling but nevertheless found that the complaint’s allegations about the OIPA process were sufficient at the pleading stage. It concluded that factual questions remained about whether the OIPA process was intended to provide a legal remedy and whether Avery unreasonably delayed filing the federal lawsuit after receiving the OIPA findings.

The court therefore denied defendants’ request for judicial notice and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims on statute-of-limitations grounds related to the OIPA complaint. In the conclusion, the court stated that this denial was without prejudice to renewal on a fuller factual record. The court also granted leave to amend the OIPA allegations if Avery chose to amend the complaint.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. It granted the motion concerning the mental-incapacity allegations, with leave to amend, and denied dismissal based on the OIPA-related equitable-tolling theory, without prejudice to renewal on a fuller factual record. Any third amended complaint was due by November 8, 2023; if Avery did not file one by then, the second amended complaint would remain the operative complaint. Judge Susan Illston signed the order on October 24, 2023.