Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04193/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04193-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN DOBSHINSKY,

Plaintiff,

v.

Sheriff-Coroner JIM PICCININI; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-4193 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Allen Dobshinsky, currently incarcerated at the High Desert State Prison, filed a pro

se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was subjected to excessive

force during his arrest on September 29, 1999, and that a false police report was written for

that arrest. The court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and identified

two deficiencies in it: the excessive force claim appeared to be barred by the statute of

limitations and the false police report claim was barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S.477 (1994). See Order of Dismissal With Leave To Amend, pp. 2-3. The court

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend to address the deficiencies identified. 

Dobshinsky thereafter filed a document entitled "Amending Complaint," (docket # 8),

which the court liberally construes to be an amended complaint. Dobshinsky also filed a

document entitled "proof of service" (docket # 9) containing additional argument about his

amended complaint.

Dobshinsky's amended complaint, as supplemented by the argument in the proof of

service, did not cure the deficiencies identified by the court in its order of dismissal with

leave to amend. He appears to argue that the claim is not time-barred because he filed state

Case 3:06-cv-04193-MHP Document 16 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

tort claims with a public agency. Any effort Dobshinsky made to present the claim to a state

government agency did not toll the limitations period for his § 1983 claim because state

notice of claim statutes – which apply when claims are presented to public agencies and have

their own special statutes of limitations – have no applicability to § 1983 actions and do not

toll the statute of limitations. See Silva v. Crain, 169 F.3d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1999). His

other argument – that he tried to resolve the dispute informally – also does not support

equitable tolling of the limitations period. His amended complaint did not plead facts

showing why his claim concerning the excessive force allegedly used seven years earlier was

not time-barred. 

For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons stated in the order of dismissal with leave

to amend, this action is DISMISSED without leave to amend because the statute of

limitations defense is complete and obvious from the face of the pleadings. The clerk shall

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2007 _____________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04193-MHP Document 16 Filed 07/20/07 Page 2 of 2