(PC) Roberts v. Kern Valley State Prison et al

Filing 14

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed as Barred by Statute of Limitations, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/28/2022. Show Cause Response due within thirty (30) days. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID NATHANIEL ROBERTS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

1:22-cv-01505-GSA-PC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
(ECF No. 1.)

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON,
et al.,

15

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO RESPOND
Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

David Nathaniel Roberts (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 12, 2022,

21

Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action at the Sacramento Division of the United

22

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On November 21, 2022,

23

the case was transferred to the Fresno Division. (ECF No. 12.) The Complaint is now before the

24

court for screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

25

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

26

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

27

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

28

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
1

1

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

2

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

3

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

4

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim

5

upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

6

A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

7

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

8

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

9

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell

10

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken

11

as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores,

12

Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state

13

a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

14

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,

15

572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

16

conclusions are not.

17

plausibility standard. Id.

18

III.

Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

19

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton,

20

California. The events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at Kern Valley State Prison

21

(KVSP) in Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the

22

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff names as defendants KVSP,

23

Kern County, Warden Henderson, and Correctional Officer Franco (collectively “Defendants”).

24

Plaintiff alleges that on July 28, 2018, he was beaten up in handcuffs by Correctional

25

Officer Franco and other officers, and suffered broken ribs, broken teeth, busted mouth, swollen

26

nose, bruised foreheat with cuts, fractured jaw, swollen cheekbone, and bruises all over his chest

27

and body. Plaintiff also alleges that he was not given a 7219 medical evaluation, treated for his

28

injuries by a nurse, or taken to a doctor.
2

1

IV.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

2

In federal court, federal law determines when a claim accrues, and “under federal law, a

3

claim accrues ‘when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of

4

the action.’” Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir.

5

2008) (quoting Two Rivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999); Fink v. Shedler, 192

6

F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999)). In the absence of a specific statute of limitations, federal courts

7

should apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Lukovsky, 535

8

F.3d at 1048; Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (2004); Fink, 192 F.3d at 914. California’s

9

two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.

10

See Jones, 393 F.3d at 927. California’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions requires

11

that the claim be filed within two years. Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.

12

In actions where the federal court borrows the state statute of limitations, the court should

13

also borrow all applicable provisions for tolling the limitations period found in state law. See

14

Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 539, 109 S.Ct. 1998, 2000 (1989). Pursuant to California Code

15

of Civil Procedure, § 352.1, a two-year limit on tolling is imposed on prisoners. Section 352.1

16

provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

17

(a) If a person entitled to bring an action, . . . is, at the time the
cause of action accrued, imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in
execution under the sentence of a criminal court for a term less
than for life, the time of that disability is not a part of the time
limited for the commencement of the action, not to exceed two
years.

18
19
20
21

Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 352.1. In addition, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an applicable

22

statute of limitations must be tolled while a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion

23

process. Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, § 7(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a).

24

Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that normally may not be

25

raised by the Court sua sponte, it may be grounds for sua sponte dismissal of an in forma pauperis

26

complaint where the defense is complete and obvious from the face of the pleadings or the court’s

27

own records. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-1230 (9th Cir. 1984). See Levald, Inc.

28

///
3

1

v. City of Palm Desert, 988 F.2d 680, 686-87 (9th Cir. 1993). That is the case here – the defense

2

appears complete and obvious from the face of the complaint.

3

Plaintiff alleges that on July 28, 2018, he was beaten and injured by Defendant

4

Correctional Officer Franco and other officers at KVSP. Based on these allegations, it appears

5

that the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s injuries began to run on or about July 28, 2022.

6

Plaintiff did not file this lawsuit until more than four years later, on September 12, 2022. Even

7

allowing for tolling of the limitations period while Plaintiff exhausted his remedies, it appears

8

that Plaintiff may not have filed this lawsuit before the statute of limitations expired. Therefore,

9

the court finds that on the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are barred

10

by the statute of limitations.

11
12

Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days to respond to this order.
V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

13

The court finds that on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint for this action, his claims may be

14

barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, the court shall issue an order for

15

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of

16

limitations.

17

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

18
19

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is

20

required to file a response in writing, showing why this case should not be

21

dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations; and

22

2.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this case.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 28, 2022

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
4