Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00171/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00171-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

18cv171-CAB-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARNELL WHITAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. LAROCHE (#342, OFFICER/PATROL 

DIVISION; A. BOYER (#349), 

OFFICER/PATROL DIVISION; J. 

PERHAM (#341), OFFICER/PATROL 

DIVISION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv171-CAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS [Doc. No. 10]

On January 24, 2018, Plaintiff Darnell Whitaker, then proceeding pro se, filed a 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming that his constitutional rights were 

violated when police allegedly used excessive force to arrest him on March 8, 2015. 

[Doc. No. 1.] On July 30, 2018, Defendants J. LaRoche, A. Boyer and J. Perham filed a 

motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), on the grounds that his 

Section 1983 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. [Doc. No. 10.] On 

September 17, 2018, now represented by counsel, Plaintiff filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 

20.] On September 25, 2018, Defendants filed a reply. [Doc. No. 21.] 

Case 3:18-cv-00171-CAB-BGS Document 22 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv171-CAB-BGS

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

In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims are barred by 

California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 

§335.1.) [Doc. No. 10-1.]1 In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the statute should be 

tolled, tacitly acknowledges that the complaint currently does not contain any allegations 

that would support tolling, and requests leave to amend to assert such allegations. [Doc. 

No. 20 at 4, 6, and 8.]

Under Rule 15(a), when there is no “[u]ndue delay, bad faith[,] dilatory motive on 

the part of the movant,... undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of ... the 

amendment, [or] futility of the amendment,” leave to amend a complaint is to be “freely 

given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). 

Generally, leave to amend is denied only if it is clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 

(9th Cir.1980). Here, Plaintiff was pro per when he filed the complaint, and his current 

counsel asserts (presumably in good faith and cognizant of his ethical obligations under 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 11) that facts exist to supporting tolling the statute of limitations.2 

Therefore, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) by October 19, 2018. If the FAC 

is not filed by October 19, 2018, the case will be CLOSED without further court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2018

 

1 Defendants Request for Judicial Notice [Doc. No. 10-2] is GRANTED.

2 Defendants’ objections to the Declaration of Marty Miller [Doc. No. 21-1] are DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

Case 3:18-cv-00171-CAB-BGS Document 22 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2