Tolbert v. Colley

Background

Joel Tolbert, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants named in the operative Second Amended Complaint were the Antioch Police Department, its chief Allen Cantando, officers James Colley and James Perkinson, and the Contra Costa County Detention Health Service.

Tolbert alleges that Colley and Perkinson arrested him on January 28, 2015, and used a bean bag, physical blows, cutting, suffocation, and threats of sexual assault despite his lack of resistance. He alleges that he later received surgery at a hospital and that requests for medical treatment were ignored for four days at the Martinez Detention Facility. He also alleges that the Antioch Police Department had widespread practices of excessive force and inadequate training and supervision, and that Cantando failed to train, supervise, or discipline officers. His fourth claim alleges that the detention health service provided inadequate medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The summonses for Cantando, Perkinson, and the Contra Costa County Detention Health Service were returned unexecuted. Cantando and Perkinson had retired from the police department, and the health service was not located at the address Tolbert provided.

Motion to Dismiss

The Antioch Police Department and Colley moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that Tolbert’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that equitable tolling did not apply. They also argued that Tolbert had not adequately pleaded a municipal-liability claim against the police department because he had not plausibly alleged either a department policy of excessive force or a causal connection between such a policy and the force used against him.

The court had previously ruled that the claims were presumptively barred by the two-year limitations period, while tolling the period during part of Tolbert’s incarceration until January 28, 2019. The court held that the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged the three elements required for equitable tolling under California law: timely notice to the defendants, lack of prejudice from the delay, and good-faith conduct.

For notice, the court found that Tolbert’s allegation that his May 2015 government claim concerned “all events described herein,” construed liberally, could include the excessive-force allegations, the department’s practices, Cantando’s conduct, and the inadequate-medical-care allegations. The court therefore concluded that the claim could have alerted the defendants to investigate the claims later brought in this case. The court did not need to resolve whether Tolbert’s later government claims provided timely notice because it found the first claim sufficient for pleading purposes.

For prejudice, the court relied on allegations that Tolbert had contacted key witnesses in October 2022, that their memories had not faded, and that police reports, photographs, and court records remained available electronically. For good faith, the court relied on Tolbert’s allegations that threats by officers caused him to fear harm to himself and his family if he filed suit. The court rejected the argument that the threats could not support tolling as to Colley merely because other officers allegedly made them.

The court also held that Tolbert plausibly pleaded a municipal-liability claim, often called a Monell claim. Such a claim requires a constitutional violation, a municipal policy, deliberate indifference to constitutional rights, and a causal connection between the policy and the violation. The court concluded that allegations about repeated beatings and killings, prior shootings, the alleged failure to discipline officers, the use of “foreign” weapons, and the lack of body cameras supported an inference that Cantando, whom the court treated as a final policymaker for policing practices, ratified an excessive-force policy. The court further held that the alleged prior incidents and allegations about inadequate training and supervision plausibly supported the existence of a policy and causation.

The motion to dismiss was DENIED.

Motion to Compel

Tolbert sought to compel production of documents. The court denied two earlier motions to compel because Tolbert had not certified a good-faith effort to discuss the discovery requests with the defendants before seeking court intervention, as required by Rule 37(a)(1).

The court found that the current effort was also insufficient. Tolbert left defense counsel one voicemail, and defense counsel returned the call and left a message with the person who answered, but Tolbert did not call back. The court also found that Tolbert had not shown that he served the document requests on the defendants. Filing discovery requests with the court did not satisfy the service requirement.

The motion to compel was DENIED.

Unserved Defendants and Disposition

The court directed the defendants to state by December 15, 2023, whether they objected to providing Cantando’s and Perkinson’s last-known addresses under seal for service purposes. It directed Tolbert to provide a current address for the Contra Costa County Detention Health Service by December 29, 2023. The court stated that failure to provide that address would result in dismissal of the claims against that defendant without prejudice.

The court DENIED the defendants’ motion to dismiss and DENIED Tolbert’s motion to compel. It stated that, after the service issues were addressed, it would schedule briefing on summary-judgment motions.