Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03579/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03579-1/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

JOSEPH PIERRE ROLLIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTINE COOK, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-3579 SI

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF DECEMBER

15, 2009 ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

By order filed December 15, 2009, the Court dismissed the complaint with limited leave to

amend. The Court dismissed the second, third and fifth causes of action as untimely, and did not grant

leave to amend these claims. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that portion of the Court’s order, and he

asserts that he can amend these claims to show that they are timely. Plaintiff’s second claim is for false

arrest against defendant Cook, the third claim alleges a Fourth Amendment violation against defendant

Cook based on her alleged preparation of a false search warrant affidavit, and the fifth claim alleges that

all defendants conspired to deprive plaintiff of his personal possessions when they permitted and aided

Betty Henderson and Kenneth Henderson to remove property from plaintiff’s storage unit. 

 Plaintiff argues that the three claims at issue “implicate injury to personal property,” and that

the limitations period on such claims “does not begin to run until the property is located and/or the

discovery of the whereabouts of the property by the aggrieved party.” Motion for reconsideration at 4:1-

3. Plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations on these claims has not begin to run because plaintiff

has never been told the whereabouts of his property. Plaintiff advanced, and the Court rejected, a

similar argument in connection with the motions to dismiss. See Order at 13:24-15:13. The Court finds

no reason to depart from its previous conclusion. 

Case 3:09-cv-03579-SI Document 52 Filed 02/22/10 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

1

 The Court held that the statute of limitations began to run on May 20, 2005, and continued to

run until December 13, 2006, when the California Court of Appeal reversed plaintiff’s conviction.

Beginning on December 13, 2006, the limitations period was tolled under Section 945.3 because the

criminal charges were “pending” from the date of the reversal through plaintiff’s retrial and acquittal

on January 15, 2008. The limitations period began to run again on January 16, 2008, and expired before

the filing of this lawsuit on August 5, 2009. 

2

Plaintiff also argues that the Court used the wrong date to determine tolling under California

Government Code § 945.3. In analyzing tolling under this section, the Court used the date of October

4, 2004, the date plaintiff’s first trial ended. Plaintiff asserts that the correct date for § 945.3 tolling is

February 1, 2005, the date that a restitution order was filed by the Court. Based upon the authority cited

by plaintiff, it is far from clear that February 1, 2005 is in fact the correct date. More importantly,

however, in analyzing the timeliness of the second and third causes of action, the Court held that the

statute of limitations was tolled under various tolling provisions from May 1, 2003 until May 1, 2005,

which is later than the date asserted by plaintiff.1

 Thus, plaintiff’s claims would not be saved under

plaintiff’s asserted tolling date. The analysis for plaintiff’s fifth claim is similar.

Accordingly, plaintiff has not identified any basis for reconsideration, and the motion is

DENIED. (Docket No. 47).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03579-SI Document 52 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2