(PC) Bland v. Moffett et al
ORDER ADOPTING 26 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING Defendants' 20 Motion to Partially Dismiss Complaint, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/1/2021. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
D. MOFFETT, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-01750-NONE-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO PARTIALLY
(Doc. Nos. 20, 26)
Plaintiff Joshua Bland is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 18, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss defendant Moffett from
this action on the ground that the claim brought against him is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion on September 29,
2020, to which defendants filed a reply on October 7, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 23, 24.) In support of
their reply, defendants concurrently filed a request for judicial notice. (Doc. No. 25.)
On February 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and that
Defendant Moffett and the claim brought against him be dismissed from this action with
prejudice. (Doc. No. 26.) As requested by defendants, the magistrate judge took judicial notice
of the fact that plaintiff delivered his complaint in this case to prison authorities for forwarding to
the court on December 4, 2019. (Id. at 4.) Based on this fact, and on the fact that the incident
giving rise to plaintiff’s claim against defendant Moffett allegedly occurred on November 23,
2015, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had failed to timely file his complaint within the
four years afforded by the applicable statute of limitations and California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 352.1. (Id. at 3-5.) The magistrate judge, therefore, concluded that plaintiff’s claim against
defendant Moffett is time-barred. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on
plaintiff and provided him 21 days to file objections. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff filed objections on
March 12, 2021. (Doc. No. 28.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
proper analysis. The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff’s claim
brought against defendant Moffett is time-barred. Plaintiff’s objections do not meaningfully
dispute this finding. Rather, plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations for the bringing of
§ 1983 actions is unconstitutional. (See Doc. No. 28 at 1.) Plaintiff’s contention and argument in
support thereof are frivolous.
1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 16, 2021 (Doc. No. 26) are
adopted in full;
2. Defendants’ motion to partially dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 20) is granted;
3. Defendant Moffett and the claim brought against him in this action are dismissed with
4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 1, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?