Patkins v. Gonzales et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/27/2017 DISMISSING this action with prejudice as untimely. CASE CLOSED.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID C. PATKINS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-01896 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

R. GONZALES, et. al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8, 2017, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and determined that his

19

allegations were barred by the statute of limitations. ECF No. 7. Rather than dismissing his

20

claims immediately, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause as to why his claims should be

21

construed as timely. Id. On May 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a response wherein he thanked the court

22

for the opportunity to be heard and stated “I’ve tried so hard for this case but I don’t really think I

23

have any options except continued loss.” ECF No. 10.

24

For the reasons previously explained, see ECF No. 7, the statute of limitations bars this

25

action. Plaintiff has provided no information that could support a different result, and appears to

26

concede untimeliness. The court notes that it has the power to dismiss this action because

27

plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 5; see Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d

28

1113, 1119-21 (9th Cir. 2012).
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice as

2

untimely. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

3

DATED: June 27, 2017

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2