Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00219/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00219-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR ROBLES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DALE LEPPKE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv0219 AWI DLB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATION

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

(Documents #21 & #29)

This is a civil rights action in which Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated his civil

rights when they used his excessive force, including shooting him 13 times and tazering him

when he was already immobile. On June 19, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and

Recommendations that recommended the court grant Defendant Madera Police Department’s

motion to dismiss and dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the applicable

statute of limitations. The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service

of the order. On July 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and

proper analysis. 

In the objections, Plaintiff contends that he was unable to timely file this lawsuit because

he was inflicted with multiple gunshot wounds, which took a long time to heal, and he was under

Case 1:06-cv-00219-AWI-DLB Document 31 Filed 08/28/07 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

psychiatric care during the limitations period. Equitable tolling may be applied when

extraordinary circumstances beyond a plaintiff's control made it impossible to file a claim on

time. Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9 Cir. 1999). Mental incapacity and the effect it th

has upon the ability to file a lawsuit is an “extraordinary circumstance” beyond a plaintiff’s

control. Id. The objections’ allegations alone are insufficient to establish a valid claim for

equitable tolling because they are vague and unsupported by any medical diagnosis or other

evidence showing Plaintiff’s mental or medical state during the limitation period. See Grant v.

McDonnell Douglas Corp., 163 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9 Cir. 1998) (holding letter from psychologist th

inadequate basis for equitable tolling); Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9 Cir. 1999) th

(stating that equitable tolling is proper where "overwhelming evidence" demonstrates that

complainant was completely disabled during the limitations period).

Regardless, Plaintiff did not raise the issue of equitable tolling or his inability to timely

file this action because of a physical or mental impairment in his opposition to the motion to

dismiss. These allegations were raised for the first time in the objections. A new theory cannot

properly be raised in objections to Findings and Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of

HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United States v.

Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual assertions that which could have been but were

not presented to the Magistrate Judge should be given no consideration when the court is

deciding whether to adopt Findings and Recommendations Sundaram v. County of Santa

Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001); Beam System, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc.,

1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997). "[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case before

the magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a different theory to the

district court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act." Greenhow, 863 F.2d at 638. 

Accordingly, the objections do not provide a basis to differ from the recommendation made by

the Magistrate Judge. 

 //

Case 1:06-cv-00219-AWI-DLB Document 31 Filed 08/28/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 19, 2007, is ADOPTED IN

FULL; and

2. Madera Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss the action as time barred is

GRANTED. The action is DISMISSED. This terminates this action in its

entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00219-AWI-DLB Document 31 Filed 08/28/07 Page 3 of 3