Court Opinion

ID: 9480630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:53:54.780825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:48.727894
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I do not agree with the court that Bian-chi’s claims for unlawful arrest and detention are saved by the Washington Code’s tolling provision. In my view, the statute of limitations has run on these claims and we must affirm the district court’s order of dismissal. I therefore respectfully dissent.
The court notes that Bianchi has been continuously imprisoned since his arrest in 1979 and then “hold[s] that actual, uninterrupted incarceration is the touchstone for determining disability by incarceration.” Ante at 1318. If Washington law provided for a general disability by incarceration, I would agree with this holding. The Washington legislature, however, has not so provided.
The Washington tolling statute teaches that if one entitled to bring an action is, “at the time the cause of action accrues either *1320under the age of eighteen years, or incompetent or disabled [to a particular degree], or imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a court for a term less than his natural life, the time of such disability” shall not be included for statute-of-limitations purposes. Wash.Rev. Code § 4.16.190 (West 1988). I agree with the court that Bianchi’s causes of action accrued when he was allegedly unlawfully arrested and detained from January 12 to January 15, 1979. We also generally agree that Bianchi was “imprisoned on a criminal charge” during this time.
Yet the court goes on to give Bianchi the benefit of another disability: that of being “in execution under the sentence of a court for a term less than his natural life.” Id. The court does so even though it concedes, in the words of the Washington statute, that Bianchi was not suffering from this second disability “at the time the cause of action accrue[d].” Id. Bianchi was not “in execution under the sentence of a court” until he was convicted and sentenced in Washington in October 1979. This conviction and sentencing took place several months after Bianchi’s arrest — that is, several months after the incidents of which he complains had occurred and his causes of action had accrued.
In my view, the tolling provision ceased to be effective and the statute of limitations began to run on Bianchi’s claims upon his conviction and sentencing. As the court concedes, Bianchi’s disability of being “imprisoned on a criminal charge” was then removed. The Washington legislature has declared irrelevant the fact that another disability {viz., being “in execution under the sentence of a court”) was put in its place. Section 4.16.250 of the Washington Code provides that “[n]o person shall avail himself of a disability unless it existed when his right of action accrued.” Wash.Rev.Code § 4.16.250 (1988) (emphasis added). In light of the unambiguous language of sections 4.16.190 and 4.16.250, there is no basis for tacking together two separate disabilities.
The court would rely on “the purpose” of the Washington tolling statute, which is to “ ‘protect those who are incapable of protecting themselves by reason of minority, insanity or actual imprisonment.’ ” Ante at 1318 (quoting Mitchell v. Greenough, 100 F.2d 184, 187 (9th Cir.1938), cert. denied, 306 U.S. 659, 59 S.Ct. 788, 83 L.Ed. 1056 (1939)) (emphasis court’s). Yet, by giving Bianchi the benefit of a disability from which he was not suffering when his causes of action accrued, the court’s holding runs against the plain language of sections 4.16.190 and 4.16.250. We should not rely on the “purpose” of statutes when to do so requires rendering meaningless unambiguous words. See Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 n. 29, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2296 n. 29, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978) (“When confronted with a statute which is plain and unambiguous on its face...., it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the statute.”) (emphasis removed); Central Montana Elec. Power Coop. v. Administrator of the Bonneville Power Admin., 840 F.2d 1472, 1478 (9th Cir.1988) (“We avoid any statutory interpretation that renders any section superfluous and does not give effect to all of the words used by Congress.”).