Sapp v. Lalor et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/4/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

RAMON J. SAPP,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 11-5120 PJH (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

M. LALOR, B. WOO, K. EDISON, V.
ETCHEBER, D. NASTARI, C. FABRI,
T. BOES, B. PEAGLER, Inspector
HOLLORAN, P. BERMUEZ, L.
LARGAREJOS, V. JACKSON, and
JOHN DOES,

13
Defendants.
14

/

15

Plaintiff, a prisoner at California Medical Facility, has filed a pro se civil rights

16

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that defendants, all law enforcement

17

officers, conspired to kill him. They encountered him at a gas station, where he says they

18

fired on him, “shooting him down.” He asserts that defendants stood over him firing,

19

although he was lying on the ground and unarmed. He says that he was shot

20

approximately forty times, and lost his left leg as a result. This incident occurred in 2002.

21

Plaintiff was informed that the applicable statute of limitations was four years and he was

22

ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as untimely. He has filed a

23

response.
Plaintiff contends that he was mentally incompetent until August 2011, and unable to

24
25

understand the need to timely file his complaint against the defendants. Plaintiff seeks

26

tolling due to his mental impairment. However, plaintiff’s claims are contradicted by the

27

records of lawsuits he has filed.

28

///

1

Plaintiff had a previous lawsuit in this court involving the medical care he received

2

after the shooting. It was settled and judgments dismissing the claims with prejudice were

3

entered. See Sapp v. County of Alameda, No. C 03-1066 PJH (Aug. 29, 2006; Dec. 21,

4

2006). Though, plaintiff was represented by counsel in that case. Plaintiff, proceeding pro

5

se filed another case on April 9, 2008. See Sapp v. San Francisco Police Department, No.

6

C 08-1903 PJH. That complaint concerned the same allegations of excessive force raised

7

in this complaint and was dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a complete in forma

8

pauperis application. A review of plaintiff’s complaint, amended complaint and many letters

9

written in 2008, severely contradict his contention that he was mentally incompetent for the
past ten years and demonstrate that he was quite able to file lawsuits.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED as untimely.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: February 4, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.11\Sapp5120.dism.wpd

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2