Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01945/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01945-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY G. INGRAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

and SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-1945 SI

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO 2006

AUDI TOWING INCIDENT ONLY

Now before the Court are plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) filed on April 5, 2007. The Court has completed the initial review required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and hereby DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, for the

reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint against the City and County of San Francisco (“City”) and

the San Francisco Police Department, concerning the towing of plaintiff’s 1988 Audi vehicle on

September 2, 2006, and the towing of his 1984 Honda Accord vehicle on February 14, 2003. 

The February 14, 2003 towing was the subject of several related actions previously filed in this

Court. See Ingram v. CCSF, et al., C 02-0598 SI; Ingram v. CCSF, C 02-4056 SI; Ingram v. CCSF,

C 02-4730 SI; Ingram v. CCSF, C 02-4733 SI; Ingram v. CCSF, C 04-0649 SI; and Ingram v. CCSF,

C 06–6896 MHP. Plaintiff has been informed by the Court several times that his claims concerning the

February 2003 towing are now time barred and must be dismissed. As recently as March 21, 2007, just

15 days before he filed this action, plaintiff was informed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel that the statute

of limitations on this claim expired at the latest on October 1, 2005. See Ingram v. CCSF, C 06-6896

Case 3:07-cv-01945-SI Document 8 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 3
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

MHP, Memorandum and Order dismissing case, filed March 21, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s current complaint provides no details regarding the 2006 Audi towing. The only

details of the incident are on a claim form submitted to the City and attached to the complaint. The form

states that on September 2, 2006, the San Francisco Police Department had plaintiff’s Audi towed. It

was parked in the “private lot for resident/guests” of plaintiff’s building. See Complaint, Ex. B. In a

letter to plaintiff dated October 27, 2006, the City denied plaintiff’s claim.

LEGAL STANDARD

IFP applications are reviewed in a two-part analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court looks

first to whether a plaintiff meets the requisite financial status to be permitted to proceed in federal court

without first paying a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The second stage of the analysis requires

examination of the complaint to ensure that it states cognizable, non-frivolous claims. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Courts treat the second prong of the analysis like a motion to dismiss filed by

a defendant. If it is “clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the [plaintiff’s] allegations,” then it is proper to dismiss the complaint and deny IFP

status. See Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 1989) (applying

standard of review for motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)). A pro se

litigant bringing an IFP suit is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome

any deficiency unless it is clear that no amendment could cure the defect. See Cato v. United States,

70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim, and therefore DISMISSES the

complaint with leave to amend, and DEFERS ruling on the IFP application.

This appears to be an action for deprivation of constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff cites the California Code section providing for a three year statute of limitation for personal

property-based actions. However, as plaintiff has been informed several times before, section 1983

claims in California are governed by California’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See

Case 3:07-cv-01945-SI Document 8 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of California, 993 F.2d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 1993). California Code of Civil

Procedure § 335.1 governs personal injury actions and provides a two year statute of limitations.

Plaintiff filed this complaint on April 5, 2007. Accordingly, any claims that accrued prior to April 5,

2005 are untimely, and plaintiff may not re-allege those claims in an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s

claims related to the Honda towing incident accrued in 2003. Those claims are therefore untimely. Any

further actions filed concerning the Honda towing incident will be summarily dismissed.. 

Section 1983 claims related to the 2006 Audi towing incident would be timely. However, the

allegations in plaintiff’s complaint revolve exclusively around the 2003 towing. Plaintiff therefore fails

to state a claim with respect to the 2006 towing. The Court will grant plaintiff leave to amend his

complaint to state a claim arising out of the 2006 towing, should he wish to do so. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint with leave to

amend as to the 2006 Audi towing incident only, and DEFERS consideration of plaintiff’s IFP

application. If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint concerning the 2006 Audi towing incident,

he must do so no later than June 4, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 21, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01945-SI Document 8 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 3