Lance Williams v. C.A. Young et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 1/21/2015. (Attachments: # 1 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL FORM) (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-8037-PA (KK)

Title

Lance Williams v. C.A. Young, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

January 7, 2015

Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge

Deb Taylor

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order To Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be
Dismissed as Untimely

I. BACKGROUND
A.

The Instant Case

On September 28, 2014, Plaintiff Lance Williams, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, constructively filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Complaint”).1 The Complaint is one of four civil rights complaints Plaintiff has filed
since September 23, 2014. See Case Nos. 2:14-cv-7583-GW-KK; 2:14-cv-8039-PA-KK;
2:14-8640-PA-KK. In the Complaint, Plaintiff sues a number of defendants for an
assault that allegedly occurred on December 31, 2010. ECF No. 3 at 3.
On November 6, 2014, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend,
noting that the Complaint did not allege sufficient facts against various defendants. On
December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On December 12, 2014,
the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, noting, once
again, that Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts against certain defendants. On
December 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

1

Under the “mailbox rule,” a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be filed as of the
date the prisoner delivered the pleading to prison authorities for mailing, not the date on which the
pleading may have been received by the court. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574-75 (9th Cir.
2000). Here, Plaintiff signed the Complaint on September 28, 2014. ECF No. 3 at 8. Thus, the Court
considers that date to be the date of filing.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-8037-PA (KK)

Title

Lance Williams v. C.A. Young, et al.

B.

Date

January 7, 2015

Plaintiff’s Other Cases

In two of Plaintiff’s other civil rights actions, the Court issued orders to show
cause (“OSCs”) why those actions should not be dismissed as untimely, since the actions
were filed more than four years after the dates of the alleged wrongful acts, i.e., the dates
of accrual. See Case No. 2:14-cv-7583-GW-KK, ECF No. 9; Case No. 2:14-cv-8640PA-KK, ECF No. 5. At the time the OSCs were issued, the Court assumed Plaintiff had
four years to file his claims: two years under section 1983’s statute of limitations, and
two years of tolling under California law for the “‘disability of imprisonment.’” Case
No. 2:14-cv-7583-GW-KK, ECF No. 9 at 2 (quoting Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927
(9th Cir. 2004)). The Court assumed two years of tolling for the disability of
imprisonment because it assumed (incorrectly) Plaintiff had been continuously
incarcerated since the dates of accrual. See Jones, 393 F.3d at 928 (“[A]ctual,
uninterrupted incarceration is the touchstone for applying California’s tolling provision
for the disability of imprisonment.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In response to the OSCs, Plaintiff submitted declarations (“OSC Declarations”)
arguing he was entitled to equitable tolling. Within the OSC Declarations, Plaintiff
admitted he was not incarcerated for approximately 16 months after the dates of accrual
– specifically, from February 28, 2011, until August 4, 2011, and from “mid October
2012” until September 18, 2013. Case No. 2:14-cv-7583-GW-KK, ECF No. 12 at 3-4;
Case No. 2:14-cv-8640-PA-KK, ECF No. 6 at 2-4. Consequently, Plaintiff was entitled
to approximately 16 months less tolling than the Court assumed when it issued the
OSCs. Thus, at most, erring on the side of caution, Plaintiff was entitled not to four
years after the dates of accrual to file his claims, but to two years and nine months.
Ultimately, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation in both civil rights
actions recommending dismissal for lack of timeliness. See Case No. 2:14-cv-7583GW-KK, ECF No. 15; Case No. 2:14-cv-8640-PA-KK, ECF No. 8.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court was not able to review the OSC Declarations in the other cases until
after the Court dismissed, with leave to amend, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in
this case. In screening the SAC, the Court must acknowledge what the OSC
Declarations reveal: Plaintiff was not continuously incarcerated, thus the Court
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-8037-PA (KK)

Date

Title

January 7, 2015

Lance Williams v. C.A. Young, et al.

incorrectly assumed Plaintiff had four years from the date of accrual to file this action.
In reality, because of the significant gap in Plaintiff’s incarceration after the date of
accrual, Plaintiff had at most two years and nine months to file this action.
Plaintiff’s claims in this case accrued on December 31, 2010. Plaintiff was
required to file his claims, at latest, by October 1, 2013. Plaintiff did not file this action
until September 28, 2014. Thus, absent equitable tolling, this action is untimely.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days
of the date of this Order why the Court should not dismiss this action as untimely.
As an alternative, Plaintiff may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
Order, request a voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal Form is attached for Plaintiff’s
convenience.
The Court warns Plaintiff that failure to file a timely response to this Order will
result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3