Belanus v. Clark, No. 12-35952 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff, a Montana state prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims based on the violation of his rights under the federal and state constitutions as a result of searches of his home, storage shed, and workplace in 2008, that were made in connection with his
criminal prosecution. The court concluded that the district court properly considered plaintiff's complaint and summarily determined that he could not state a cause of action. The material submitted by petition in support of his complaint shows that he knew of the searches in August 2008; his claims concerning the searches accrued at that time under federal law; and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his claim should be equitably tolled where defendants did not conceal the existence of his claim or prevented him from filing a timely lawsuit. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his action. The court also affirmed the district court's decision to count the dismissal as a strike against plaintiff for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The court concluded that applying a strike to a paid case is consistent with the plain language of the statute, furthers the purposes behind the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and accords with the rulings of its sister circuits.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a prisoner civil rights complaint alleging constitutional violations as a result of searches of plaintiff’s home, storage shed, and workplace in 2008, that were made in connection with his criminal prosecution. The panel held that the district court properly noted that to the extent plaintiff asserted that the evidence collected during the searches caused his conviction, his claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). To the extent the claims were not barred by Heck, the panel held that the district court also properly determined that the complaint was barred by Montana’s three-year statute of limitations and that equitable tolling did not apply because plaintiff knew of the searches when they occurred and that they might be warrantless. The panel further held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because it was clear that no amendment could overcome the statute of limitations bar. The panel held that the district court acted within its discretion in assessing a strike against plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), even though he had paid the docket fee. Determining that plaintiff had standing to challenge the imposition of a strike pursuant to § 1915(g), the panel concluded that applying a strike to a paid case was consistent BELANUS V. CLARK 3 with the plain language of the statute, furthered the purposes behind the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and accorded with the rulings of four of other sister circuits. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Fernandez stated that it was not absolutely clear that the deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint could not be cured by amendment and that plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to plead a basis for equitable tolling. Judge Fernandez also stated that the district court’s order that the dismissal of plaintiff’s action counted as a strike did not have any binding effect upon him, and therefore plaintiff had not suffered an injury in fact sufficient to establish a case or controversy.
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.