Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Arnaud Cammas, who represents himself, sued the City of Berkeley and others over a February 2022 incident in which he alleges he was choked by a man named Goree, after which officers arrested him and wrote a report he says was false. In September 2026 the court granted a second motion to dismiss. It dismissed every claim with prejudice except a First Amendment retaliation claim (claim nine) based on conduct after November 28, 2023. It gave him until September 21, 2026, to seek leave to amend that claim with a supplement identifying the actors, the protected activity, and the facts supporting retaliatory motive.
Cammas filed two motions that day. One sought leave to amend claim nine and attached a supplement naming Sergeant Jennifer Wilson, Lieutenant David Lindenau, Sergeant Jumaane Jones, and Chief Jennifer Louis. It alleged that Wilson said in early 2023 she would not "bolster" his civil lawsuit, and that the Department declined in 2024 to act on his renewed requests. The other sought leave to move for reconsideration of the dismissal of claims five (fabrication of evidence), ten (Monell), and fifteen (§ 1985(3)), or alternatively to modify that dismissal to one with leave to amend. The defendants opposed both motions, argued that amendment was futile, and asked for judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied leave to amend and denied reconsideration except in one narrow respect. It corrected two record citations in the September order that attributed to Cammas's pleadings allegations about his beliefs they did not contain. The corrections did not change the result. His own proposed second amended complaint alleges that by August 2023 he suspected a City–Goree relationship and was requesting records about it. That put him on inquiry notice of the Monell and conspiracy claims more than two years before he sued on November 28, 2025.
California equitable tolling, now fully briefed, did not help him. The oversight and Internal Affairs processes could not award damages on these constitutional claims, did not give notice of the fabrication and municipal-custom claims, and ran while he was already litigating in state court. The fabrication claim was untimely even with generous tolling. The Monell and § 1985(3) claims were also insufficiently pleaded, because one 2015 incident and training cooperation did not show a custom, and no agreement or class-based animus was alleged.
On retaliation, the supplement cured the pleading gaps but showed that the challenged decision was Wilson's February 2023 refusal. The 2024 emails were inquiries about, and reaffirmations of, that decision, so the two-year period ran out in February 2025, before any officer was named. Claims against the newly named officers were separately untimely and did not relate back, because Cammas knew who they were. The court also found no plausible retaliation by any officer and held that qualified immunity independently barred the damages claims. Because nothing remains, the court said it will enter judgment for the defendants by separate document and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff's own proposed pleading can establish inquiry notice, so a court may correct mistaken record citations in an earlier order and still adhere to its ruling.
- California equitable tolling requires good-faith pursuit of an alternative remedy that gives notice of the same claim, and police oversight reviews that cannot award constitutional damages and run alongside active litigation did not qualify.
- Later emails asking an agency to confirm or reconsider an earlier refusal are not independently wrongful acts that restart the limitations period.
- Relation back under Rule 15(c) requires a mistake about a party's identity, not an informed choice to sue other parties.
- Qualified immunity can be resolved at the pleading stage where no Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit decision clearly establishes that declining to reinvestigate an incident violates the First Amendment.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district-court order by a magistrate judge acting on consent of the parties, so it carries no precedential weight. It shows how a court can correct mistakes in its own earlier order on reconsideration without changing the outcome when the plaintiff's own pleading independently supports dismissal.
It also shows the court giving a self-represented litigant the chance to brief and plead the governing California tolling standard before finalizing dismissal with prejudice. Nothing remains pending in the district court beyond entry of judgment.