Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03460/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03460-4/pdf.json

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

---

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 Plaintiff has never identified the two unnamed

defendants. Thus, they have never been served.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDITH C. MAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-3460 BZ

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

On November 25, 2009, the California Highway Patrol

(“CHP”), on behalf of all defendants1 filed a motion to

dismiss pro se plaintiff Judith May’s (“plaintiff”) complaint

on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction and the

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)

and 12(b)(6). As CHP has not consented to magistrate judge

jurisdiction, I will have the case reassigned. In this

report, I recommend the motion be GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on July 31, 2002, two

Case 3:09-cv-03460-MHP Document 26 Filed 01/14/10 Page 1 of 3
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

unnamed CHP officers arrested her for drunk driving and

subjected her to unlawful search and seizure without due

process of law. Plaintiff alleges two causes of action:

first, the CHP failed to properly train and supervise the

unnamed officers; and second, that the unnamed officers

violated plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourth,

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and 42 United States Code section 1983.

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not

be construed to extend to any suit . . . prosecuted against

one of the United States by Citizens of another State . . .” 

Such sovereign immunity extends not only to the state, but

also to an agency of the state. Durning v. Citibank, 950 F.2d

1419, 1423 (9th Cir. 1991). In O’Leary v. California Highway

Patrol, the Ninth Circuit held that the California Highway

Patrol is an agency of the state for the purposes of the

Eleventh Amendment and thus enjoys sovereign immunity. 923

F.2d 862, 862 (9th Cir. 1991). In reaching this conclusion,

the Ninth Circuit noted that the “California Highway Patrol is

a state agency, see Cal. Gov’t Code § 11000, and the State of

California has not consented to suit, see Atascadero State

Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985).” Here, as in

O’Leary, the State of California has not consented to suit. 

Thus, the CHP enjoys sovereign immunity. Therefore, I

recommend defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first

cause of action against CHP be GRANTED.

As to the second cause of action, the Ninth Circuit has

Case 3:09-cv-03460-MHP Document 26 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 3
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

repeatedly held that for § 1983 claims, courts apply the forum

state’s statute of limitations and tolling unless it is

inconsistent with federal law. Flink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d

911, 914 (9th Cir, 1999). Before January 1, 2003, the

California statute of limitations was one year. But effective

January 1, 2003, the statute of limitations became two years. 

However, the new statute of limitations cannot be applied

retroactively. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 955 (9th

Cir. 2004). 

Here, California statute of limitations is the applicable

law. The cause of action accrued on the date of the alleged

incident, July 31, 2002, that was almost six months before

January 1, 2003, the effective date of the enlarged period. 

Therefore, the one-year statute of limitations governs. Yet,

plaintiff did not file her complaint until September 9, 2009,

more than seven years after the incident, her suit against the

unnamed officers is time-barred. Furthermore, plaintiff

provides no factual support to justify an application of the

tolling provisions. Therefore, I recommend defendant’s motion

to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action be GRANTED.

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend CHP’s motion to

dismiss be GRANTED. The hearing scheduled for January 20,

2010 is VACATED, and this matter will be reassigned.

Dated: January 14, 2010 

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\MAY V. CALIF HIGHWAY PATROL\REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-03460-MHP Document 26 Filed 01/14/10 Page 3 of 3