Shamburger v. Stewart et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 2/11/2013. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/23/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

HAROLD B. SHAMBURGER,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

J. STEWART, et. al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-6130 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights
13
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
14
pauperis.
15
DISCUSSION
16
A.

Standard of Review

17
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
18
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
20
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
21
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
22
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
23
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
25
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
26
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
27
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
28
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

1

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

2

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

3

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

4

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

5

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

6

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

7

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

8

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

9

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1937, 1950 (2009).

12

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

13

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

14

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

15

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

B.

17

Legal Claims
On March 31, 2006, defendants conducted an active/inactive review of plaintiff’s

18

gang validation status and retained him in the Secured Housing Unit (SHU). Plaintiff

19

alleges that defendants falsified allegations in retaliation for plaintiff’s legal filings and

20

helping other prisoners with their lawsuits.

21

As of 2002, the statute of limitations for civil actions filed in California is two years,

22

as set forth at California Civil Procedure Code § 335.1, which is the applicable statute in §

23

1983 actions. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004). Because an

24

inmate suffers from the disability of imprisonment, an inmate has, for claims accruing after

25

2002, four years to bring a § 1983 claim for damages in California, i.e., the regular two year

26

period under section 335.1 plus two years during which accrual was postponed due to the

27

disability of imprisonment. California Civil Procedure Code § 352.1(a); Johnson v. State of

28
2

1

California, 207 F.3d 650, 654 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Under federal law, a claim generally accrues

2

for calculating the statutory limitations period when the plaintiff knows or has reason to

3

know of the injury which is the basis of the action. See TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987,

4

991–92 (9th Cir. 1999).

5

This action was received by the court on November 26, 2012, more than six years

6

after the event occurred and two years past the expiration of the statute of limitations.

7

Court records also indicate this action is substantially similar to a prior action that was

8

dismissed, No. C 07-4597 JSW. That case was closed on March 30, 2009, and affirmed on

9

appeal by the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, plaintiff attempted to file the exact copy of the
complaint in this case as an amended complaint in that case after the case was closed.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed for being filed beyond the

12

statute of limitations and as duplicative.

13

CONCLUSION

14

Plaintiff shall show cause by February 11, 2013, why the case should not be

15

dismissed for being filed beyond the statute of limitations and as duplicative. If plaintiff

16

does not establish that the claims are timely and not duplicative, or if he does not respond

17

within the time allowed, the case will be dismissed.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

20
21

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Shamburger6130.osc.wpd

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The two years of tolling is for prisoners serving less than a life term. The court is not
aware of plaintiff’s sentence, but even with the two years tolling this claim is still untimely.
California Civil Procedure Code § 352.1(a)
3