Opinion ID: 667825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Demotion and Dismissal (1984)

Text: 13 In his third cause of action, Crawford alleges that the defendants altered and removed evidence at the February 1984 hearing on Crawford's second demotion. In his fourth cause of action, Crawford alleges that the defendants ignored relevant evidence when they dismissed him in July 1984. Both the second demotion and the dismissal occurred in 1984. Since these injuries occurred in 1984 and Crawford filed this action in 1991, Crawford is barred by the statute of limitations unless equitable tolling applies. See Cervantes, 5 F.3d at 1275; Vaughan, 927 F.2d at 480. 14 The equitable tolling doctrine is not available to Crawford in connection with his third and fourth causes of action because the named defendants in this action could not possibly have received notice of Crawford's earlier proceedings. In both the administrative and state proceedings, Crawford challenged his demotion and dismissal before the California State Personnel Board (SPB). In contrast, in the present action Crawford has named four employees of the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) as defendants. Crawford cannot provide effective notice to the employees of one state agency by naming another separate state agency in his earlier proceedings. See Del Percio, 877 F.2d at 786 n. 1 (equitable tolling not available as a matter of law because plaintiff's administrative proceedings against the California Commission on Teacher Preparation and Licensing did not provide notice to the officials of a local school district in a later federal action). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed these claims as barred by the statute of limitations. See id. 4