Pumphrey v. Battles

1

TYRONE PUMPHREY, Plaintiff, v. BRANDON BATTLES, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-cv-09005-JSC

United States District Court, N.D. California

February 3, 2023

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RE: DKT. NO. 48

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This dispute raises a novel question of law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not contain a statute of limitations. When a federal civil rights statute does not include its own statute of limitations, federal courts borrow the forum state's limitations period for personal injury torts. Bonneau v Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 28J, 666 F.3d 577, 580-581 (9th Cir. 2012). Federal courts also borrow “closely related” state law tolling rules. Id. Here the Court must determine “how much . . . state law should be borrowed.” Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2002). Specifically, the Court must decide whether to borrow a tolling rule (“Emergency Rule 9”) issued by the Judicial Council of California in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.^[1] If federal law borrows Emergency Rule 9's tolling provision, Plaintiff timely filed his complaint. If not, Plaintiff filed after the statute of limitations expired. Defendants move for summary judgment on the latter theory. But the question is unresolved in the Ninth Circuit and is largely a matter of first impression.^[2]

After carefully considering the briefing and having had the benefit of oral argument on January 26, 2023, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court borrows state law as it pertains to tolling for § 1983 claims. Emergency Rule 9 is state law that broadly tolled all civil statutes of limitations. So, the Court borrows and applies Emergency Rule 9 here. Under that rule, Plaintiff filed the complaint within the statute of limitations.

BACKGROUND

I. Timeline of Events

The following points are undisputed. The events underlying Plaintiff's lawsuit occurred on June 8, 2019. Plaintiff filed this action in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 20, 2021. California's two year limitations period for personal injury torts governs the § 1983 claims here. See Butler v. Nat'l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 335.1). Thus, because Plaintiff's claims accrued on June 8, 2019, and a two-year statute of limitations governs Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff's claims would have expired on June 8, 2021, under normal circumstances. (See Dkt. Nos. 50, 51.) The only remaining question is one of law: whether the statute of limitations for Plaintiff's § 1983 actions was tolled such that Plaintiff's claims were timely filed in November 2021.

II. Emergency Rule 9

In May 2020, the Judicial Council of California (“JCC”) promulgated emergency rules because of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Judicial Council of Cal., Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, available at https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/appendix-i.pdf. Emergency Rule 9 states: “Notwithstanding any other law, the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020” and “Notwithstanding any other law, the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action that are 180 days or less are tolled from April 6, 2020, until August 3, 2020.” Id. By its terms, Emergency Rule 9 tolled the statute of limitations for civil causes of action (with limitations periods longer than 180 days) for 179 additional days (the number of days from April 6, 2020 through October 1, 2020).

Plaintiff's § 1983 claims have a statute of limitations that exceeds 180 days. See Cal. Civ. Code § 335.1. And the relevant tolling period occurred after Plaintiff's claims accrued but before the two-year statute of limitations expired. So, if Emergency Rule 9 applies here, Plaintiff had until June 8, 2021, plus 179 days (i.e., December 4, 2021) to file his complaint.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues California's Emergency Rule 9 does not apply here. The Court disagrees. Federal law borrows state law tolling rules under § 1983. Emergency Rule 9 is state law broadly tolling all statutes of limitations. Thus, Emergency Rule 9 applies and Plaintiff's complaint was timely filed.

I. Tolling and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

A. The Borrowing Framework

Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitations. Butler, 766 F.3d at 1198. 42

U.S.C. § 1988 “quite clearly instructs federal courts to refer to state statutes when federal law provides no rule of decision for actions brought under § 1983.” Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y.v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 484 (1980) (quoting Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 593 (1978)). More precisely, Section 1988 provides:

[I]n all cases where [provisions of this Title] are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause ....

42 U.S.C. § 1988. This borrowing scheme applies to both state statutes of limitations and “coordinate tolling rules,” so long as such rules are not “inconsistent with federal law.” Tomanio, 446 U.S. at 484-485. So, for § 1983 claims, federal courts borrow both limitations periods and tolling rules from state law because the generosity of one affects the other. See TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Hemmings v. Barian, 822 F.2d 688, 689 (7^th Cir.1987)).

But “reliance on state law in this context is not unlimited.” Id. Two principles cabin how federal courts borrow state law to “fill the gap” in federal law under § 1988. See Silva v. City of New Bedford, 602 F.Supp.3d 186, 197 (D. Mass. 2022). First, federal courts should “borrow no more [state law] than necessary when using a state statute of limitations and its related tolling provisions to implement federal statutory law.” TwoRivers, 174 F.3d at 992 (citing West v. Conrail, 481 U.S. 35, 39-40 (1987)). And second, federal courts must consider whether the borrowed state law is inconsistent with federal law. Tomanio, 446 U.S. at 484-485.

This borrowing scheme means Defendants' argument-federal courts may not apply the JCC's procedural rules-is inapposite. Each case Defendants cite addressed a federal law that has its own statute of limitations period. See, e.g., Goerss v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No. 21-CV-04485-EMC, 2021 WL 4932134 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2021) (finding Emergency Rule 9 does not toll claims under Title VII or ADA); Sholes v. Cates, No. 1:21-CV-01006-DAD-HBK, 2021 WL 5567381 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:21-CV-01006-ADA-HBK-HC, 2022 WL 4072862 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2022) (finding Emergency Rule 9 does not toll statute of limitations under AEDPA). Unlike the statutes considered in Defendants' cited authority, § 1983 contains no such limitations period. Instead, as discussed above, § 1983 borrows from state law. So, Defendants' argument fails because the Court is not deciding whether to apply state procedural rules here; rather, the Court applies federal law that borrows its substance from state law. See TwoRivers, 174 F.3d at 993 (noting “when a federal court borrows a state limitations period [or tolling period] in connection with a federal statute without its own statute of limitations, the court is applying federal, not state law.”)

B. Application

Applying the borrowing framework here, the Court must answer two questions: (1) whether the borrowing framework encompasses Emergency Rule 9, and, if so, (2) whether Emergency Rule 9 is consistent with federal law. Because the Court answers both questions in the affirmative, Emergency Rule 9 applies here. Thus, Plaintiff's claim was timely filed.

1. Whether the Borrowing Framework Encompasses Emergency Rule 9

The threshold question in the borrowing analysis considers whether Emergency Rule 9 falls within the ambit of § 1988. Under § 1988, “[o]nly the length of the limitations period, and closely related questions of tolling and application are to be governed by state law.” Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 269 (1985). Interpreting this rule, the Ninth Circuit has held:

The tolling rules that we take from state law, consistent with Wilson, are broad tolling rules. Such rules include a would-be litigant's incapacity, see TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1999) (incarceration); Ormiston v. Nelson, 117 F.3d 69, 72 n. 3 (2d Cir. 1997) (insanity), the pendency of other proceedings, see Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2001); Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 1999), and equitable tolling, see Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001).

Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, not state law, governs the “tolling rule” for when a § 1983 action is commenced in federal district court). Thus, under Sain, federal district courts borrow tolling rules if (i) the rule is “state law” and (ii) the tolling rule is “closely related” to the statute of limitations. Id. Emergency Rule 9 meets both criteria.

i. Emergency Rule 9 is State Law.

The Judicial Council of California is a creature of the California Constitution. Cal. Const. art. VI, § 6. The rules it adopts “have the force of law.” California Ct. Reps. Assn. v. Jud. Council of California, 39 Cal.App.4th 15, 22 (1995) (collecting cases). Defendants argue JCC rules are court administration rules, not “law.” (Dkt. No. 51 at 2.) But section...