Carl West v. City of Mesa , 594 F. App'x 923 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 18 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    CARL WEST,                                     No. 12-16811
    Plaintiff - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:12-CV-00657-JWS
    District of Arizona,
    v.                                           Phoenix
    CITY OF MESA; JEFFREY JACOBS, a
    police Defendant for the City of Mesa/         ORDER
    Husband ,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    And
    UNKNOWN JACOBS, named as: Jane
    Doe Jacobs/ wife; UNKNOWN PARTIES,
    named as: John and Jane Does I-X, XYZ
    Corporations I-X, XYZ Partnerships I-X,
    and Limited Liability Companies I-X,
    Defendants.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Appellees’ Motion for Limited Reconsideration filed October 27, 2014, is
    hereby GRANTED. An amended memorandum disposition is filed concurrently
    with this order.
    Judge Silverman voted to deny the motion. A dismissal with prejudice on
    the motion of the prosecution due to its inability to prove the case is obviously a
    termination of the criminal proceedings in the defendant’s favor.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 18 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CARL WEST,                                       No. 12-16811
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:12-CV-00657-JWS
    v.
    AMENDED MEMORANDUM*
    CITY OF MESA and JEFFREY JACOBS,
    a police Defendant for the City of Mesa/
    Husband,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    UNKNOWN JACOBS, named as: Jane
    Doe Jacobs/ wife and UNKNOWN
    PARTIES, named as: John and Jane Does
    I-X, XYZ Corporations I-X, XYZ
    Partnerships I-X, and Limited Liability
    Companies I-X,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Submitted October 8, 2014**
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Carl West appeals from dismissal of his complaint against the City of Mesa
    and Detective Jeffrey Jacobs. We affirm in part and vacate in part the district
    court’s order and remand for entry of an order consistent with this disposition.
    1.     The district court correctly dismissed West’s state claim for malicious
    prosecution because litigation challenging West’s conviction had not yet finally
    terminated in his favor. Moran v. Klatzke, 
    682 P.2d 1156
    , 1157 (Ariz. Ct. App.
    1984). The same rule applies to West’s claims under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     against the
    City of Mesa and Detective Jacobs insofar as they are based on West’s prosecution.
    Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    , 487 (1994). It was therefore error to dismiss
    West’s § 1983 claims as time-barred because that claim, like the state malicious
    prosecution claim, had not yet accrued.
    2.     The district court correctly dismissed West’s remaining claims as
    time-barred. West’s false arrest and imprisonment claims, both state and federal,
    accrued when his detention was validated by legal process. Wallace v. Kato, 
    549 U.S. 384
    , 390 (2007); see Hansen v. Stoll, 
    636 P.2d 1236
    , 1242 (Ariz. Ct. App.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    2
    1981). West’s remaining tort claims were not subject to a favorable termination
    requirement, and accrued at least by the time West was convicted. West’s
    complaint alleges that he was injured only by Hrbal’s coerced testimony at his
    2003 trial, not by any later misconduct on the part of Detective Jacobs or the City
    of Mesa. Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 
    898 P.2d 964
    , 966 (Ariz. 1995) (“Under the ‘discovery rule,’ a plaintiff’s cause of action
    does not accrue until the plaintiff knows or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
    should know the facts underlying the cause.”). The limitations periods for West’s
    state and federal claims are one-year and two-years, respectively. 
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541
    ; 
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821
    ; TwoRivers v. Lewis, 
    174 F.3d 987
    , 991 (9th
    Cir. 1999). West was convicted on February 6, 2003, making the February 6,
    2012 filing of his complaint untimely.1
    3.     The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to
    amend. The claims stemming from West’s prosecution against the City of Mesa
    and Detective Jacobs could only be saved by amendment if the termination of
    West’s conviction was final. At the time of the district court’s order, West’s post-
    1
    West’s argument on appeal that former FBI Agent Gordwin’s
    indictment in 2008 tolls the limitations period also fails. This argument was not
    raised before the district court, related allegations do not appear in West’s
    complaint, and if the limitations period was tolled until 2008, West’s complaint
    would still be untimely.
    3
    conviction relief was not final. During the course of this appeal, however, the
    litigation concerning West’s conviction terminated. Thus, on remand West must
    be granted leave to amend the state and federal claims arising from his prosecution
    in order to reflect the current legal status of his state conviction. Additionally,
    West must be granted leave to amend his Monell claim against the city because it is
    not clear on this record that he is unable to allege a policy, custom, or practice of
    the City under which Detective Jacobs acted. See Eminence Capital, LLC v.
    Aspeon, Inc., 
    316 F.3d 1048
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). The remaining
    claims are time-barred, and thus cannot be saved by amendment. 
    Id.
    Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
    AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED.
    4