From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francis v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Sep 8, 2003
No. C 03-2865 MMC, (Docket No. 3) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2003)

Opinion

No. C 03-2865 MMC, (Docket No. 3)

September 8, 2003


ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE


Before the Court is plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), when a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court shall dismiss the case if the Court determines that the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Court previously denied plaintiff's application because his complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failed to state facts sufficient to state a viable claim, and because his claims appeared to be barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs original complaint alleged that (1) "[i]n 1953, plaintiff was "restrained of his liberty in a criminally insane war without being declared insane by a court (see In Re Francis, Mendocino Co. Cal. 1953)"; (2) "plaintiff was locked up in San Quentin Prison without a felony conviction (see Cal. C.I.I. prison file #A-26645-P)"; (3) "[i]n 1956, late Cal. Governor Pat Brown got plaintiff released"; and (4) that "[a]s a result of the before mentioned, plaintiff suffered pains and penalties without due process of law and the equal protection of the law." (See Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff now also alleges that "[w]ithout probable cause plaintiffs right to be secure in his person was violated in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, to wit; he was subject to involuntary servitude in a state prison without having been duly convicted of a crime." (Am. Compl at 1.)

It is now clear that plaintiff asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that he was unlawfully imprisoned from 1952 to 1956 in violation of the United States Constitution. Until recently, plaintiffs section 1983 claim would have been subject to a one-year statute of limitations. See, e.g., Owens v. Okure. 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989); McDougal v. County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 672-73 (9th Cir. 1991). That period has recently been extended to two years. See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 335.1. The Court need not decide which time period should apply to plaintiff's claim, however, as he has not set forth any reason why even a two-year limitations period should be tolled for the nearly fifty years since plaintiff's imprisonment ended. The Court finds that plaintiff's complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.

Accordingly, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Francis v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Sep 8, 2003
No. C 03-2865 MMC, (Docket No. 3) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2003)
Case details for

Francis v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:GILBERT RAY FRANCIS, Plaintiff, v UNITED STATES, Defendant (Docket No. 3)

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Sep 8, 2003

Citations

No. C 03-2865 MMC, (Docket No. 3) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2003)