(PC) Chavez v. Doe 1 ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERTO CHAVEZ, 1:18-cv-01534-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. (ECF No. 10.) 14 J. DOE #1, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Gilberto Chavez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed 19 the Complaint commencing this action at the United States District Court for the Central District 20 of California. (ECF No. 1.) On October 31, 2018, the case was transferred to this court. (ECF 21 No. 4.) 22 On September 23, 2019, the court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 23 Plaintiff brings medical claims in the Complaint based on allegations that on August 3, 2014, his 24 shoulder was injured when he lifted a heavy bag of rice. Because Plaintiff was injured on August 25 3, 2013, and the Complaint was not filed until October 16, 2018, the court issued an order 26 requiring Plaintiff to file a response showing cause why this case should not be dismissed as 27 barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (ECF No. 10.) On October 17, 2018, Plaintiff 28 filed a response to the court’s order. (ECF No. 13.) 1 Plaintiff’s response informs the court that he faced significant delays in filing this lawsuit. 2 Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s response, the court finds that at this stage of the proceedings it is not 3 complete and obvious on the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute 4 of limitations.1 Therefore, the order to show cause shall be discharged. 5 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The court’s order to show cause, issued on September 23, 2019, is 7 DISCHARGED; and 8 2. The court shall screen the Complaint in due course. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: October 29, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that normally may not be raised by the Court sua sponte, it may be grounds for sua sponte dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint where the defense is 27 complete and obvious from the face of the pleadings or the court’s own records. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-1230 (9th Cir. 1984). See Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 988 F.2d 680, 686-87 (9th Cir. 1993). 28