Hamilton v. Davis et al

Filing 23

Order Dismissing the Case. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 5/13/2024. (vclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON,

Case No. 23-cv-06620-VC

Plaintiff,
v.
RONALD DAVIS, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE ON
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
GROUNDS

Defendants.

The case is dismissed with prejudice due to Hamilton’s failure to file suit within the
applicable statute of limitations. A complaint “cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts” establishing the claim is timely. Supermail
Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, that standard is satisfied.
In the complaint, Hamilton alleges he was exposed to Covid-19 in June 2020 while
incarcerated at San Quentin, which means the statute of limitations would normally begin to run
at that time. However, because Hamilton was incarcerated, he can avail himself of California’s
tolling provision for the disability of imprisonment, meaning that the clock would not begin
running until he was no longer incarcerated. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1. According to the
complaint, Hamilton was released from prison on December 3, 2020. Thus, because Hamilton
filed his complaint on November 3, 2023, it is clear from the face of the complaint that he failed
to bring this action within the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Jones v. Blanas, 393
F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] § 1983 action filed in California today would clearly be
governed by California's new two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.”).
In response to the court’s Order to Show Cause, Hamilton argues that because he was on

parole until December 24, 2021, the statute of limitations was tolled until that date, making his
lawsuit timely.1 Under California law, if a cause of action accrues while a person is “imprisoned
on a criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a criminal court for a term less than
for life,” the statute of limitations is tolled. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1. Although the
statutory language is not a model of clarity, the justification for such a tolling provision is to
protect prisoners who have a “more limited ability to investigate their claims, to contact lawyers
and to avail themselves of the judicial process.” Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 804
(9th Cir. 1994). That same reasoning does not apply to people who are on parole and no longer in
physical custody. Moreover, the case law does not support applying the tolling provision to time
spent on parole. Deutch v. Hoffman, 165 Cal. App. 3d 152, 155 (Ct. App. 1985) (“[T]he reasons
previously enunciated to justify depriving a classic prisoner, i.e., a prison inmate, access to the
courts to prosecute a civil action were never truly applicable to a parolee.”); see also Blanas, 393
F.3d at 928 (“[W]e have held that ‘actual, uninterrupted incarceration is the touchstone’ for
applying California’s tolling provision for the disability of imprisonment.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 13, 2024
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

1

Hamilton first responded to the Order to Show Cause on April 1 by submitting exhibits of his
inmate identification card showing the date of December 3, 2020, and an email from December
24, 2021 indicating his discharge from parole. See Dkt. No. 21. He filed a further response on
April 8 in which he argues his lawsuit is timely because he “remained in the custody of
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations till he was released therefrom on
December 24, 2021.” Dkt. No. 22.

2