Lance Williams v. Katherine Allard et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY OR AS AN INVALID CHALLENGE TO PLAINTIFF'S CONFINEMENT by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/10/2015. (dts)

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

CV 15-37-PA (KK)

Title

Lance Williams v. Katherine Allard, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

March 27, 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

On November 30, 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 appears to be untimely on its face, and to challenge the
validity of Plaintiff’s confinement. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the
Complaint should not be dismissed as time-barred and as an invalid challenge to
Plaintiff’s confinement.
I. BACKGROUND
The Complaint is one of five civil rights complaints Plaintiff has filed since
September 23, 2014. See Case Nos. 2:14-cv-7583-GW-KK; 2:14-cv-8037-PA-KK; 2:14cv-8039-PA-KK; 2:14-8640-PA-KK; 2:14-cv-8640-PA-KK. The Complaint was
received by the Court on January 2, 2015, and filed on January 5, 2015. ECF No. 1 at 1.
Plaintiff sues various defendants for conspiring to wrongfully imprison him on January
10, 2011, and January 28, 2011. See ECF No. 1 at 3, 6, 11. Plaintiff states his
confinement violated an “agreed upon plea agreement.” Id. at 11.

1

Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a
pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date
it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff states he signed the Complaint on November 30, 2014. ECF No. 1 at 13.
Thus, the Court considers that date to be the date of filing.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5

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

CV 15-37-PA (KK)

Date

Title

March 27, 2015

Lance Williams v. Katherine Allard, et al.

On December 3, 2014, in response to orders to show cause in two of his other
cases, Plaintiff filed declarations (“OSC Declarations”) in which he admitted he was not
incarcerated for approximately 16 months from 2011 to 2013 – specifically, from
February 28, 2011, until August 4, 2011, and from “mid October 2012” until September
18, 2013.2 Case No. 2:14-cv-7583-GW-KK, ECF No. 12 at 3-4; Case No. 2:14-cv-8640PA-KK, ECF No. 6 at 2-4.
II. DISCUSSION
A.

The Complaint Appears to Be Untimely on Its Face.
1.

Relevant Law

A court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte “on the ground that it is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations” if “the running of the statute is apparent on the face of
the complaint.” Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954,
969 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Levald, Inc.
v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 687 (9th Cir. 1993).
“For actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts apply the forum state’s statute of
limitations for personal injury actions, along with the forum state’s law regarding tolling,
including equitable tolling, except to the extent any of these laws is inconsistent with
federal law.” Jones, 393 F.3d at 927 (citation omitted). California’s statute of limitations
for personal injury claims is two years. Id. (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1).
California law “provides for the tolling of a statute of limitations for a period of two years
based on the disability of imprisonment,” if the plaintiff is “‘imprisoned on a criminal
charge . . . for a term less than for life.’” Id. (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1)
(footnote omitted). “[A]ctual, uninterrupted incarceration is the touchstone for applying
2

The Court takes judicial notice of the OSC Declarations. A court “may take
judicial notice of matters of public record,” including of “proceedings and filings” in
other cases and “in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if
those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted);
United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244,
248 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5

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

CV 15-37-PA (KK)

Date

Title

March 27, 2015

Lance Williams v. Katherine Allard, et al.

California’s tolling provision for the disability of imprisonment.” Id. at 928 (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).
In addition, “California courts apply equitable tolling to prevent the unjust
technical forfeiture of causes of action, where the defendant would suffer no prejudice.”
Id. at 928 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Application of California’s
equitable tolling doctrine requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned
by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public interest or policy
expressed by the limitations statute.” Id. (citations, internal quotation marks, and
alterations omitted). “Under California law, a plaintiff must meet three conditions to
equitably toll a statute of limitations: (1) defendant must have had timely notice of the
claim; (2) defendant must not be prejudiced by being required to defend the otherwise
barred claim; and (3) plaintiff’s conduct must have been reasonable and in good faith.”
Fink v. Shelder, 192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). “[T]he effect of equitable tolling is that the limitations period stops running
during the tolling event, and begins to run again only when the tolling event has
concluded.” Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 31 Cal. 4th 363, 370 (2003). The burden to plead
facts which would give rise to equitable tolling falls upon the plaintiff. Hinton v. Pac.
Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Kleinhammer v. City of Paso Robles,
385 Fed. App’x 642, 643 (9th Cir. 2010).
While “state law determines the length of the limitations period, federal law
determines when a civil rights claim accrues.” Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d
1151, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2000). Under federal law, “a claim accrues when the plaintiff
knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” TwoRivers
v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
2.

Application

Plaintiff’s claims accrued, at latest, on January 28, 2011. ECF No. 1 at 3. After
that date of accrual, Plaintiff was unincarcerated for approximately 16 months – i.e., 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-8640PA-KK, ECF No. 6 at 2-4. Therefore, at most, Plaintiff is entitled to nine months of
tolling for the “disability of imprisonment.” Jones, 393 F.3d at 927. Adding nine months
to section 1983’s two-year statute of limitations, Plaintiff had, at most, two years and
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5

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

CV 15-37-PA (KK)

Date

Title

March 27, 2015

Lance Williams v. Katherine Allard, et al.

nine months from the date of accrual to file this action. Id. Thus, Plaintiff was required
to file this action by October 28, 2013, at the latest.
Plaintiff did not file the Complaint until November 30, 2014, more than 13 months
after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not asked for
equitable tolling, much less demonstrated he is eligible for it. Therefore, the Complaint
appears to be time-barred.
B.

The Complaint Appears to Challenge the Validity of Plaintiff’s Confinement.
1.
Relevant Law

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus “is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner
who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 481, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994) (citation omitted). “[A] state
prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred” if “success in that action would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration,” except where the prisoner’s
conviction has already been invalidated. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82, 125
S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253 (2005).
2.

Application

The Complaint alleges the Defendants conspired to wrongfully imprison Plaintiff,
and that Plaintiff’s confinement violated an “agreed upon plea agreement.” ECF No. 1 at
6, 11. Thus, the Complaint appears to challenge the “fact or duration” of Plaintiff’s
confinement. Heck, 512 U.S. at 481. Because Plaintiff has not shown his conviction has
already been invalidated, the Complaint appears to be barred under Heck. Wilkinson,
544 U.S. at 81-82.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of
the date of this Order why the Court should not dismiss the Complaint with prejudice as
untimely or as an invalid challenge to Plaintiff’s confinement.
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
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5

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

CV 15-37-PA (KK)

Date

Title

March 27, 2015

Lance Williams v. Katherine Allard, et al.

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 with prejudice for failure to
follow Court orders.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 5