(PC) Spearman v. Department of State Hospitals ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD EDWARD SPEARMAN, No. 2:21-cv-01213-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Reginald Edward Spearman’s (“Plaintiff”) 19 Motions to Reopen the Case. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) No opposition has been filed. 20 On June 8, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure (“Rule”) 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 19.) The magistrate judge noted that 23 although Plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, Plaintiff was properly served pursuant to 24 Local Rule 182(f) as “it is [P]laintiff’s responsibility to keep the [C]ourt apprised of his current 25 address at all times.” (Id.) This Court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and 26 dismissed the action without prejudice on July 25, 2022. (ECF No. 20.) 27 /// 28 1 Approximately six months later, on January 23, 2023, Plaintiff brought the instant motion 2 | to reopen the case, arguing that his change of address letter must not have gotten mailed out 3 | during his transfer and shortly before his release. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff listed his address as 4 2512 O Street Unit #10, Sacramento, California, 95816. Ud.) Plaintiff filed a second motion to 5 || reopen the case two months later, on March 30, 2023. CECF No. 23.) He now states his address 6 | is at the Sacramento County Jail at 651 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814. (d.) 7 To the extent Plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider its prior decision pursuant to Rules 8 | 59 or 60, Plaintiff fails to persuade the Court that such relief is warranted. The magistrate judge 9 | correctly noted that it was Plaintiff's responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current 10 | address, and Plaintiff failed to do so until over six months after this case was dismissed. 11 For these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions to Reopen the Case. 12 | (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) If Plaintiff wishes to proceed, he should initiate a new action with a new 13 | application to proceed in forma pauperis.! 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. f /) 15 | DATE: May 10, 2023 “ Yeas bw 16 —ZAK ZEN Troy L. Nunley> } 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 | | While no statute of limitations is contained within the express language of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States Supreme Court has directed that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 “requires courts to 24 | borrow and apply to all § 1983 claims the one most analogous state statute of limitations.” 5 Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 240 (1989). As civil rights actions are best characterized as actions for injuries to personal rights, federal courts borrow the state statute of limitations that 26 || applies to personal injury actions in the forum state for both acts. McDougal v. Cnty. of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 672-74 (9th Cir. 1991). It appears Plaintiff’s action is subject to California’s two- 27 | year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007); 2g Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 335.1.