Stacia Tatum v. Teresa Schwartz , 405 F. App'x 169 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STACIA TATUM, No. 08-16987
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01440-JAM-
EFB
v.
TERESA SCHWARTZ; JONATHAN MEMORANDUM *
ZEH; LANCE JENSEN; CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS &
REHABILITATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 2, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
Stacia Tatum (“Tatum”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment, dismissing Tatum’s claims of hostile work environment and retaliation.
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2000e(a)-(n).
The district court properly denied Tatum’s request to toll the statute of
limitations by reason of insanity under Cal. Civ. Proc. § 352(a). For purposes of
section 352(a), a plaintiff is “insane” if “incapable of caring for his [or her]
property or transacting business or understanding the nature or effects of his [or
her] acts.” Alcott Rehab. Hosp. v. Super. Ct., 112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 807, 812 (Cal. Ct.
App. 2001) (alteration in original) (quoting Pearl v. Pearl, 177 Cal. 303, 307
(1918)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The facts demonstrate “lucid
intervals”: Tatum filed her workers’ compensation claim, was deemed by a
psychiatrist to be alert and oriented with normal affect, wrote a letter stating her
desire “to return to work as soon as possible,” reported subsiding anxiety to an
almost negligible level, and hired legal counsel. See Hsu v. Mt. Zion Hosp., 66
Cal. Rptr. 659, 664–65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968).
The district court properly denied Tatum’s request for equitable tolling.
Mental incapacity warrants equitable tolling when, “extraordinary circumstances
beyond the plaintiff’s control made it impossible to file a claim on time.” Stoll v.
Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1999). Because Tatum was able to file
2
paperwork, converse with doctors, write a letter detailing her claim, and hire legal
counsel, her circumstances do not rise to the extraordinary level required.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants on
Tatum’s retaliation claim. Retaliation requires the plaintiff to show a causal link
between protected activity and adverse employment action. Brooks v. City of San
Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir. 2000). Temporal proximity of one
year–measured from the date of Tatum’s complaint until the date of her work
assignment–is insufficient to establish an inference of retaliation without additional
evidence, which Tatum failed to provide. See Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 339
F.3d 792, 802 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
3