Kentrell Willis v. United States

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENTRELL WILLIS, No. 20-15127
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00761-LJO-BAM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 11, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges
Federal prisoner Kentrell Willis appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) as
barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Gregg v. Haw. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 870 F.3d 883, 886 (9th
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2017) (dismissal as time-barred); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We vacate
and remand.
The district court determined that Willis’s claims were time-barred and that
Willis was not entitled to equitable tolling. However, Willis alleged that prison
officials withheld his legal materials necessary to file a well-pleaded complaint. It
is not evident at this early stage in the proceedings that equitable tolling would not
apply to extend the limitations proceeding. See 28 U.S.C § 2401(b); Wong v.
Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining elements necessary for
equitable tolling); Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1276-77 (9th Cir.
1993) (noting dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations is disfavored
where the complaint, liberally construed, adequately alleges facts showing the
potential applicability of tolling). Because the action was dismissed at screening,
and the grounds for equitable tolling are highly fact-dependent, we vacate and
remand for the district court to order service of the complaint on defendant.
VACATED and REMANDED.