Jose Lopez v. City of Santa Ana
698 F. App'x 401
9th Cir.2017Background
- Jose Manuel Lopez, proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and raised additional federal and state-law claims arising from an alleged false arrest/false imprisonment and related misconduct.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing Lopez’s federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
- Lopez appealed the dismissal; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(c) dismissal de novo and heard the appeal on the briefs (no oral argument).
- The district court dismissed the § 1983/§ 1985 false arrest and false imprisonment claims as time-barred under California’s two-year personal-injury statute of limitations, applying Wallace v. Kato to accrual timing.
- The court also dismissed Lopez’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and his § 1985 conspiracy claim for failure to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim.
- The RICO claim was dismissed because governmental entities cannot form the requisite criminal intent for a RICO violation; the denial of Lopez’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice was upheld as a docket-management decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez’s § 1983/§ 1985 false arrest and false imprisonment claims are time-barred | Lopez asserted his claims were timely | Defendants argued claims accrued earlier and are barred by California’s two-year statute | Claims accrued at detention/legal process (or at end of imprisonment); suit filed after limitations period, so barred |
| Whether Lopez pleaded plausible Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment and § 1985 conspiracy claims | Lopez contended facts supported constitutional and conspiracy claims | Defendants argued pleadings lacked sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claims | Dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim under pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs |
| Whether a RICO claim can proceed against governmental entities | Lopez asserted RICO violations by government actors/entities | Defendants argued governmental entities cannot form the criminal intent required for RICO | RICO claim dismissed because governmental entities cannot form the necessary criminal intent |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in procedural rulings (denying summary judgment; declining supplemental jurisdiction) | Lopez argued procedural rulings were improper | Defendants defended docket control and district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction | No abuse of discretion: denial of summary judgment without prejudice and refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (§ 1983 false arrest claim accrues when detention pursuant to legal process begins; false imprisonment accrues when imprisonment ends)
- Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (California statute of limitations for personal-injury torts applies to §§ 1983 and 1985 claims)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim)
- Pedrina v. Chun, 97 F.3d 1296 (9th Cir. 1996) (governmental entities cannot form requisite criminal intent for RICO liability)
- Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard and discretion for declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims)
- Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1994) (when federal claims are dismissed, district court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state claims)