(PC) Roberts v. Kern Valley State Prison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID NATHANIEL ROBERTS, 1:22-cv-01505-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 13 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY v. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 14 (ECF No. 1.) KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, 15 et al., THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO RESPOND 16 Defendants. 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 David Nathaniel Roberts (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 12, 2022, 21 Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action at the Sacramento Division of the United 22 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On November 21, 2022, 23 the case was transferred to the Fresno Division. (ECF No. 12.) The Complaint is now before the 24 court for screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 25 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 26 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 27 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 28 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 1 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 2 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 3 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 4 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim 5 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 6 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 7 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 8 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 9 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 10 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 11 as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 12 Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state 13 a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 14 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 15 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 16 conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 17 plausibility standard. Id. 18 III. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 19 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, 20 California. The events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at Kern Valley State Prison 21 (KVSP) in Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the 22 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff names as defendants KVSP, 23 Kern County, Warden Henderson, and Correctional Officer Franco (collectively “Defendants”). 24 Plaintiff alleges that on July 28, 2018, he was beaten up in handcuffs by Correctional 25 Officer Franco and other officers, and suffered broken ribs, broken teeth, busted mouth, swollen 26 nose, bruised foreheat with cuts, fractured jaw, swollen cheekbone, and bruises all over his chest 27 and body. Plaintiff also alleges that he was not given a 7219 medical evaluation, treated for his 28 injuries by a nurse, or taken to a doctor. 1 IV. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 2 In federal court, federal law determines when a claim accrues, and “under federal law, a 3 claim accrues ‘when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of 4 the action.’” Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 5 2008) (quoting Two Rivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999); Fink v. Shedler, 192 6 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999)). In the absence of a specific statute of limitations, federal courts 7 should apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Lukovsky, 535 8 F.3d at 1048; Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (2004); Fink, 192 F.3d at 914. California’s 9 two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. 10 See Jones, 393 F.3d at 927. California’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions requires 11 that the claim be filed within two years. Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1. 12 In actions where the federal court borrows the state statute of limitations, the court should 13 also borrow all applicable provisions for tolling the limitations period found in state law. See 14 Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 539, 109 S.Ct. 1998, 2000 (1989). Pursuant to California Code 15 of Civil Procedure, § 352.1, a two-year limit on tolling is imposed on prisoners. Section 352.1 16 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 17 (a) If a person entitled to bring an action, . . . is, at the time the cause of action accrued, imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in 18 execution under the sentence of a criminal court for a term less than for life, the time of that disability is not a part of the time 19 limited for the commencement of the action, not to exceed two years. 20 21 Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 352.1. In addition, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an applicable 22 statute of limitations must be tolled while a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion 23 process. Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, § 7(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a). 24 Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that normally may not be 25 raised by the Court sua sponte, it may be grounds for sua sponte dismissal of an in forma pauperis 26 complaint where the defense is complete and obvious from the face of the pleadings or the court’s 27 own records. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-1230 (9th Cir. 1984). See Levald, Inc. 28 /// 1 v. City of Palm Desert, 988 F.2d 680, 686-87 (9th Cir. 1993). That is the case here – the defense 2 appears complete and obvious from the face of the complaint. 3 Plaintiff alleges that on July 28, 2018, he was beaten and injured by Defendant 4 Correctional Officer Franco and other officers at KVSP. Based on these allegations, it appears 5 that the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s injuries began to run on or about July 28, 2022. 6 Plaintiff did not file this lawsuit until more than four years later, on September 12, 2022. Even 7 allowing for tolling of the limitations period while Plaintiff exhausted his remedies, it appears 8 that Plaintiff may not have filed this lawsuit before the statute of limitations expired. Therefore, 9 the court finds that on the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are barred 10 by the statute of limitations. 11 Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days to respond to this order. 12 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 13 The court finds that on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint for this action, his claims may be 14 barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, the court shall issue an order for 15 Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of 16 limitations. 17 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 18 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is 20 required to file a response in writing, showing why this case should not be 21 dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations; and 22 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: November 28, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28