Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00479/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00479-12/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY TYRONE GARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER BAUTISTA,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-0479 JAM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, currently incarcerated at California State Prison–Solano. 

Plaintiff proceeds, in forma pauperis and without counsel, in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Throughout the course of this action, plaintiff has alleged that sole defendant Bautista, a 

police officer with the City of Vallejo Police Department, used excessive force during the course 

of plaintiff’s arrest by kicking plaintiff in the jaw. Defendant Bautista eventually filed a motion 

for summary judgment, in which he asserts the absence of any genuine dispute regarding the fact 

that he did not kick plaintiff in the jaw. (ECF No. 60.) The court conducted an initial review of 

the materials submitted by the parties in support of, and in opposition to, the motion for summary 

judgment. Upon concluding its review, the court noted that – at least according to a police report 

submitted by defendant in support of his summary judgment motion – the individual who kicked 

plaintiff in the jaw may have been one Corporal Estudillo (a non-party), rather than defendant 

Case 2:13-cv-00479-JAM-KJN Document 74 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Bautista. (See ECF No. 69.) Out of an abundance of caution, the court granted plaintiff leave to 

file an amended complaint in which he named Estudillo as an additional defendant. (Id.)

In response, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, together with a proposed 

third amended complaint. (ECF No. 70.) Notably, as discussed in the court’s August 28, 2015 

order, plaintiff chose to proceed in his proposed amended complaint solely against Corporal 

Estudillo, rather than against both Estudillo and Bautista. (See ECF No. 71.) Defendant Bautista 

timely filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 72.) Plaintiff has not filed a 

reply.

Defendant argues that the applicable statute of limitations has expired on plaintiff’s claim 

against defendant Corporal Estudillo. Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has no independent statute of 

limitations, see Johnson v. State of California, 207 F.3d 650, 653 (9th Cir. 2000), courts must

instead apply the limitations period governing personal injury actions in the state where the cause 

of action arose. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007) (citing Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 

235, 238 (1989)); see also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 271-72, 276 (1985). Under California 

law, as of January 1, 2003, the generally-applicable statute of limitations in personal injury 

actions is two years. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.1

As plaintiff alleges that Corporal Estudillo subjected him to excessive force on November 

10, 2012, the statute of limitations on any Section 1983 claim against Estudillo would have run on 

November 10, 2014.2 Accordingly, in order to state a claim solely against Estudillo, plaintiff’s 

proposed amended complaint would have to relate back to March 8, 2013, the date on which 

plaintiff filed his initial complaint against defendant Bautista. 

 

1 As plaintiff was not incarcerated at the time he alleges that Corporal Estudillo struck him, he is 

not entitled to tolling under California Code of Civil Procedure § 352.1(a), which provides: “If a 

person entitled to bring an action . . . is, at the time the cause of action accrued, imprisoned on a 

criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a criminal court for a term less than for life, 

the time of that disability is not a part of the time limited for the commencement of the action, not 

to exceed two years.” Id.

2 Defendant’s brief contends that the applicable deadline is November 14, 2014 (ECF No. 72 at 

6), rather than November 10, 2014 without further explanation. The court is uncertain as to why 

defendant chose the former date, but in any event, the analysis as to the limitations period is the 

same for either date.

Case 2:13-cv-00479-JAM-KJN Document 74 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Under the applicable provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15:

An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the 

original pleading when:

(A) the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows 

relation back;

(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the 

conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out--or attempted to be set 

out--in the original pleading; or

(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party 

against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied 

and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the 

summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by 

amendment:

(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be 

prejudiced in defending on the merits; and

(ii) knew or should have known that the action would 

have been brought against it, but for a mistake 

concerning the proper party’s identity.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) (emphasis added).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides 120 days for service of the summons and 

complaint, and in a non-prisoner case, would ordinarily have established a deadline of July 6, 

2013. However, given the requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A that the court review “a 

complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a[n] . . . officer or employee of 

a governmental entity” prior to ordering service, the court finds that the applicable deadline was 

November 30, 2013, i.e., 120 days after August 2, 2013, the date on which the court ordered 

service of the summons and complaint on defendant Baustista.

Accompanying defendant’s opposition is the declaration of defendant’s counsel, Kelly J. 

Trujillo, which sets forth facts establishing that Corporal Estudillo retired from the City of Vallejo 

Police Department on February 24, 2013, before the filing of this action. (ECF No. 72-1 ¶ 2.) 

The declaration further provides that “when a new lawsuit is served on the City of Vallejo, the 

City Attorney’s office provides email notification of the new lawsuit to the named Defendant(s), 

the department head of the named employee(s)[,] and City administration. [. . .] [S]uch notice 

was provided via email on September 10, 2013 to the Chief of Police and City administration. On 

Case 2:13-cv-00479-JAM-KJN Document 74 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

October 11, 2013, an email regarding the lawsuit was sent to Officer Bautista. Corporal Estudillo 

was not sent this notice during the Rule 4(m) period or at any other time regarding this matter 

because he was not a named Defendant.” (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.)

In the court’s view, under these facts , plaintiff cannot show that Corporal Estudillo 

“should have known” of the instant lawsuit within the applicable period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(ii). 

Nevertheless, the declaration provided by defendant’s counsel is insufficient to establish that 

Corporal Estudillo did not actually know of the lawsuit prior to November 30, 2013. It is 

possible that defendant Bautista may have told Corporal Estudillo about the lawsuit, or that 

Estudillo heard about the lawsuit through other channels. Accordingly, before ruling on the issue 

of whether plaintiff may proceed on a complaint naming Bautista as the sole named defendant, 

the court must hear from Estudillo regarding the date, if any, on which he learned of the instant 

lawsuit.

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-one days, 

defendant is directed to file and serve a declaration, signed by Corporal Estudillo under penalty of 

perjury, that states the date on, and the circumstances under, which Corporal Estudillo learned of 

the instant lawsuit.

Dated: November 2, 2015

/garr0479.dec

Case 2:13-cv-00479-JAM-KJN Document 74 Filed 11/03/15 Page 4 of 4