UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
C ARL W EST, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF M ESA; JEFFREY JAC OB S, a polic e De fe n da

nt for the C i ty

of M e sa / Husba n d , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s, And UNKNOW

N JAC OB S, na

m e d a s: Ja

ne Doe Ja c obs/ wife ; UNKNOW N PAR T IES, nam e d a s: John a

nd Ja ne Doe s I-X, XYZ C orporations I-X, XYZ Pa rtne rships I-X, and Lim ite d Lia

bility C om pa nie s I-X, De fe nda

nts. No. 12-16811 D.C . No. 2:12-C V-00657-JW S Distric t of Ariz ona , Phoe nix ORDER

B e fore : D.W . NELSON, SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s . Appe lle e s’ M otion for Limite d R e c onside ra tion file d Oc tobe r 27, 2014, is he re by G RANT E D . An a m e nde d m e m oran dum disposition is file d c o n c urre ntly with this order. 

# FIL ED D EC 18 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSJudge Silve rm an vote d to de ny the m otion. A dism

issa l with pre

judic e on the m otion of theprose c ution dueto its ina bility to prove the c a s e is obviously a te rm ination of the c rim ina l proc e e dings in the de fe nda nt’ s fav or. IT IS SO O RDE RE D.N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ARL W EST, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF M ESA and JEFFREY JAC OB S, a polic e De fe nda

nt for the C ity

of M e sa / Husba n d, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s, a nd UNKNOW

N JAC OB S, na

m e d a s: Ja

ne Doe Ja c obs/ wife and UNKNOW N PAR TIES, nam e d

a s : John a

nd Ja ne Doe s I-X, XYZ C orporations I-X, XYZ Partne rships I-X, a

n d Lim i te d Lia

bility C om pa nie s I-X, De fe nda

nts. No. 12-16811 D.C . No. 2:12-C V-00657-JW S AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na John W . Se dwic k, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED D EC 18 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 8, 2014 ** Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : D.W . NELSON, SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s . C arl W e st a

ppe a ls from

dism issa l of his c om

pla int a ga inst theC i ty

of M e sa and De te c tive Je ffre y

Ja c obs. W e a ffirm

in pa rt a nd va c at e in pa

rt the distric t c ourt’ s orde r and re m and for e ntry of a n orde r c onsiste nt with this disposition. 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly dism isse d W e st’ s sta

te c la im for m a lic ious prose c ution be c a

use litiga tion c ha lle nging W e st’ s c onvic tion ha d not y e t fina lly te rm inate d in his fa

vor. Moran v . K

latzk e , 682 P.2d 1156, 1157 (Ariz . C t. App. 1984). The sa

m e rule a pplie s to W e st’ s c la im s unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a ga inst the C ity of M e sa an d De te c tive Ja c obs insofa r a s the y are ba se d on W e st’ s prose c ution. He c k v . Humphre

y , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). It was the re fore e rror to dismiss W e st’ s § 1983 c la im s a s tim e -barre d be c a use tha t c la im , like the sta

t e m a l ic ious prose c ution c la im , ha d not y e t a c c rue d. 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly dism isse d W e st’ s re m a ining c la i m s a s tim e -barre d. W e st’ s fa l se arre s t a nd im prisonm e n t

c la im s, both sta

te and fe d e ra l,
a c c rue d whe n his de te ntion wa s va lida te d by le ga l proc e ss. W

a llac e v . K

ato , 549 U.S. 384, 390 (2007); se e Hanse n v . Stoll , 636 P.2d 1236, 1242 (Ariz . C t . App.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 21981). W e st’ s re m a ining tort c la im s we re not subje c t to a favora b l e te rm ination
re quire m e nt, a

nd a c c rue d at le a st by the tim e W e st wa s c onvic te d. W e st’ s c om pla i nt a lle ge s tha

t he wa s injure d only

by Hrba l ’ s c oe rc e d te stim ony at his 2003 tria l, not by

any late r m i sc onduc t on the pa rt of De te c tive Ja c obs or theC ity of M e sa . Gust, Rose nfe ld &He nde r son v . Prude ntial Ins. C

o. of Am. , 898 P.2d 964, 966 (Ariz . 1995) (“ Unde r the ‘ disc ove ry rule ,’ a pla intiff’ s c a

use of a c tion doe s not a c c rue until the

pla intiff knows or, in the e x e rc ise of re a sona

ble dilige nc e , should know the

fa c ts unde rly ing the c a

use .” ). The lim i tations pe riods for W e st’ s sta te an d fe de ra l c la im s a

re one -y e ar and two-y e ars, re s pe c tive ly . Ariz
. R e v. Stat. § 12-541; Ariz
. R e v. Stat . § 12-821; Tw oRiv e r s v . Le w is , 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th C ir. 1999). W e st wa s c o nvic te d on Fe brua ry 6, 2003, m ak ing the Fe brua ry 6, 2012 filing of his c o m

pla int untime ly
. 1 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng le ave to
am e nd. The c la im s ste m

m ing from

W e s t’ s prose c ution a ga inst theC ity of M e sa and De te c tive Ja c o bs c ould only be sa ve d by am e n dm e nt if thete rm ination of W e st’ s c onvic t ion wa s fina l. At thetim e of the distric t c ourt’ s orde r, W e s t’ s post1 W e st’ s a

rgum e nt on a

ppe a l tha t form e r FB I Age n t Gordwin’ s indic tm e nt in 2008 tolls the lim ita t ions pe riod a lso fa ils. This a rgum e nt wa s not ra ise d be fore the distric t c o urt, re late d a lle g at ions do not a ppe ar in W e st’ s c om pla i nt, a nd if the lim ita

tions pe riod wa s tolle d until 2008, W e st’ s c o m pla int would still be

untim e ly
. 3c onvic tion re lie f wa s not fina l. During the c o urse of this a

ppe a l, howe ve r, the litiga tion c onc e rning W e st’ s c onvic tion te rm inate d. Thus, on re m and W e s t m ust be grante d le ave to a

m e nd the sta

te and fe de ra l c la i m s a

rising from

his prose c ution in orde r to re fle c t the c urre nt le ga l sta tus of his sta

te c onvic tion. Additiona

lly , W e st m ust be grante d le ave to a

m e nd his Mone ll c la im

a ga inst thec i ty

be c a use it is not c le ar on this re c ord tha t he is una

ble to a lle ge a

polic y , c ustom , or pra c tic e of the C ity unde r whic h

De te c t ive Ja c obs a c te d. Se e Emine nc e C apital, LLC

v . Aspe on, Inc
. , 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2003) (pe r c uriam ). The re m a ining
c la im s a re tim e -barre d, a

nd thus c annot be sa

ve d by am e ndm e nt. Id. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t and RE M ANDE D.

4