Butler v. NCRC, No. 11-55806 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that various defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they searched her apartment without a warrant. The court dismissed the claim based on untimeliness. The court concluded that the district court properly rejected plaintiff's claim that she sufficiently identified all defendants; the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's amended complaints, which added certain defendants, did not relate back to the date of her original complaint under Cal. Civ. P. Code 474; the district court also concluded that plaintiff's amended complaints did not relate back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C); and the district court correctly rejected plaintiff's claim for equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Civil Procedure. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, on statute of limitations grounds, of claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionally of a warrantless search of plaintiff’s apartment by various actors. The panel held that the district court did not err by determining that the original complaint did not sufficiently identify all the proper defendants and that plaintiff’s amended complaints, adding appellees, did not relate back to the time that plaintiff filed her original complaint. The panel held that the amended complaints did not relate back under Cal. Civ. P. Code § 474 because plaintiff was not ignorant of the appellees’ names or identities at the time the original complaint was filed. The panel further held that the amended complaints did not relate back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C) because plaintiff did not establish that any of the appellees knew or should have known that her lawsuit would have been brought against them but for her mistake. The panel further held that the district court did not err in rejecting, at the pleading stage, plaintiff’s claim of equitable tolling under California law.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.