Griffin Burke v. Trevor Basil
20-56124
| 9th Cir. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Griffin Burke sued Newport-Mesa Unified School District and individual defendants Boss, Boulton, and Hays alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California Education Code § 220, and fraud.
- District court dismissed those claims as time‑barred; it certified the order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), giving this court appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- The court applied California statutes of limitations: Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two years for personal injury) and § 338(d) (three years for fraud), with statutory tolling under § 352(a) until Burke turned 18 on March 6, 2016.
- The district court relied on accrual/delayed‑discovery principles (Lukovsky and Fox): a § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff is aware of the actual injury; delayed discovery requires that a reasonable investigation would not have revealed the factual basis earlier.
- Burke argued amended complaints related back to the original complaint and that defendants fraudulently concealed facts; the district court found no relation back and held fraudulent concealment was not pleaded with the required particularity.
- The district court denied leave to amend as futile; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983, Cal. Educ. Code § 220, and fraud claims are time‑barred | Tolling until Burke turned 18 and delayed discovery meant claims timely | Claims accrued earlier; limitations expired even with minority tolling | Claims barred; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether amended complaints relate back to original complaint | New claims/amendments relate back under relation‑back doctrine | Amendments do not meet relation‑back standards | No relation back; amendments do not save claims |
| Whether fraudulent concealment/equitable estoppel tolled limitations | Defendants concealed wrongdoing, preventing timely suit | Plaintiff failed to plead concealment with particularity required for tolling | Tolling not applied; concealment not sufficiently pleaded |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Leave should be granted to cure pleading defects | Amendment would be futile given timeliness defects | Denial proper because amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (accrual rule for § 1983; equitable‑estoppel/ concealment principles)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo‑Surgery, Inc., 110 P.3d 914 (Cal. 2005) (California delayed‑discovery accrual rule)
- Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2014) (relation‑back doctrine analysis when state limitations apply)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for dismissal without leave to amend when amendment would be futile)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (court will not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal)