Opinion
No. CV03-03-S-BLW
January 23, 2003
ORDER
This case was reassigned to this Court by the Honorable Larry M. Boyle because it is related to Case No. CV00-199-S-BLW. The Court now reviews the Complaint to determine whether consolidation or summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 1915A. The Court also reviews Plaintiff's other pending motions. Having reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the following Order.
I. REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
The Court is required to review complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof which states frivolous or malicious claim, which fails to slate a claim upon which relief may be granted, or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff sues the Idaho State Bar for failure to assign him an attorney in CV00-199. The Idaho State Bar has not been involved in pursuing assignment of an attorney in this mailer; rather, the Court has been attempting to find an attorney through the Court's own Pro Se Pro Bono Program, without participation from the Idaho State Bar. There is no legal basis for suing the Idaho State Bar, as the State Bar has had nothing to do with Case No. CV00-199. Therefore, this claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff also sues the Ada County Sheriff for failure to place him in the State Mental Hospital after his Order of Commitment in 1999. This claim is beyond the two-year statute of limitation and shall be dismissed.
A district court may summarily dismiss an action as frivolous when a defense is complete and obvious from the face of the pleadings or the court's own records. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (construing § 1915(d)). The statute of limitation is a proper basis for sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(d). See Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1995); Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993)). Inasmuch as he civil rights statute provides a remedy but does not itself confer any substantive rights, the statute of limitation period for filing a civil rights suit is the statute of limitation period for personal injuries in the state where the claim arose. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985). In Idaho, the statute of limitation period for personal injury actions is two years. See I.C. § 5-219(4).
It has not yet been determined whether Plaintiff's claims in CV00-199 have merit. If the Court determines that the claims in CV00-199 have merit, the Court will revisit the claims against the Ada County Sheriff in this matter, providing Plaintiff with an opportunity to show that equitable tolling should apply.
II. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 4) is MOOT.