Charles Podaras v. City of Menlo Park
698 F. App'x 348
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charles Podaras, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserting federal and state-law claims.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead plausible claims and on statute-of-limitations grounds (California two-year rule applicable to § 1983 claims).
- Podaras also sought to challenge state-court rulings (denial of a petition for factual innocence and evidentiary rulings); the district court treated these as a forbidden de facto appeal and dismissed under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.
- The district court denied Podaras leave to amend, finding amendment would be futile, and denied his motion to alter or amend the judgment for lack of a basis for relief.
- Podaras moved for appointment of counsel; the motion was denied.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court’s dismissal and related rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of § 1983 pleading | Podaras argued his complaint stated constitutional and state-law claims | Defendants argued complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations and was time-barred | Court: Dismissed under Iqbal; claims not plausible and governed by two-year statute of limitations (accrual when injury known) |
| Rooker–Feldman applicability | Podaras sought review of state-court denial of factual innocence and evidentiary rulings | Defendants argued federal suit improperly sought review of state-court judgment | Court: Rooker–Feldman bars these claims as a de facto appeal |
| Leave to amend | Podaras requested further leave to amend complaint | Defendants opposed; argued amendment would be futile | Court: Denial of leave to amend affirmed as amendment would be futile |
| Motion to alter or amend judgment | Podaras moved under Rules 59(e)/60(b) seeking relief | Defendants argued no basis for relief shown | Court: Denial affirmed; no grounds demonstrated |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead sufficient factual matter to be facially plausible)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal reviewed de novo for pro se complaints)
- Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussion of proper application of the Rooker–Feldman doctrine)
- Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 claims borrow state personal-injury statute of limitations and accrual rule)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend need not be granted if amendment would be futile)
- Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (grounds for relief from judgment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b))
- Estate of Amaro v. City of Oakland, 653 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2011) (case cited and rejected as inapplicable by appellant)
- Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (appellate court reviews only issues argued specifically in opening brief)