Zina Butler v. Housing Auth. County of La
766 F.3d 1191
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Butler filed a 2009 §1983 complaint naming National CORE; subsequent amendments added HACoLA, Palmdale, Barraza, and D'Errico?
- Initial complaint identified only National CORE; later amendments expanded defendants but stated they were unclear to district court
- District court dismissed Palmdale, Barraza, HACoLA, and D'Errico as untimely and not relation back
- Court held California and Rule 15(c) govern relation back; California law generally bars relation back except misnomer exception under §474
- Rule 15(c) 1991 amendment allows relation back when more permissive; after analysis, amendments did not relate back
- Court affirmed dismissal, leaving National CORE as the sole defendant
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendments relate back under Rule 15(c) and California law | Butler | NCRC/HACoLA/Palmdale/D'Errico | Amendments did not relate back |
| Whether Butler identified additional defendants in the original complaint | Butler identified entities via misnomers | No plain indication of intent to sue Palmdale/HACoLA/Barraza/D'Errico | Original complaint failed to identify those defendants |
| Whether California tolling or Rule 4(m) tolling applied | Equitable tolling should save claims | Tolling insufficient to rescue time-barred claims | No tolling saved claims against Palmdale/Barraza/HACoLA/D'Errico |
| Whether HACoLA and D’Errico are time-barred given lack of notice | Tolling due to tort claim and notice | No notice/knew identity; not timely related back | HACoLA and D’Errico time-barred |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to pro se plaintiffs balancing policy goals | Merits policy should prevail | Repose and prejudice concerns prevail | California equitable tolling doctrine did not save claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Cabrales v. Cnty. of L.A., 864 F.2d 1454 (9th Cir. 1988) (state relation back rules govern §1983 when limitations borrowed)
- Merritt v. Cnty. of L.A., 875 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1989) (state law relation back can apply in §1983 actions)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (relation back depends on what defendant knew, not plaintiff)
- Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2013) (Rule 15(c) relation back across circuits; notice within 4(m) period)
- West v. Conrail, 481 U.S. 35 (1987) (borrowed limitations law governs relation back nuances)