Opinion
No. C 03-3860 TEH (pr)
November 10, 2003
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Roderick Washington, currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint concerns conditions of confinement at Pelican Bay State Prison during 1995-1997, when Washington was housed there. The court now reviews Washington's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). A claim that is incomprehensible may be dismissed as frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law. See Jackson v. Arizona 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
The complaint has a fatal defect: the claims therein are time-barred. The appropriate limitations period for a § 1983 action is that of the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury torts.See Wilson v. Garcia. 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985);Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1994). Because California has multiple statutes of limitations for different torts, the court borrows the general or residual statute for personal injury actions to use for a § 1983 action, which is now a two-year limitations period and before 2002 was a one-year limitations period. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 and former § 340(3). The court also must give effect to a state's tolling provisions.See generally Hardin v. Straub. 490 U.S. 536, 543-44 (1989). California Civil Procedure Code section 352.1 tolls the statute of limitations when a person is "imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a criminal court for a term of less than for life." See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a). The tolling is not indefinite, however; the disability of imprisonment delays the accrual of the cause of action for a maximum of two years.See id.
Regardless of whether the one-year or two-year limitations period is applied to this case, it is untimely — even with the allowance of two years of tolling for the disability of imprisonment. Washington alleges four claims in his complaint, and all of the relevant events occurred during the 1995 — 1997 time period. The claims concern things that happened to him in prison and things that were immediately known to him, e.g., confiscation of his property, denial of access to the courts, and excessive force. His claims accrued no later than the end of 1997. Using the one-year statute of limitations period then applicable, plus the two years for the disability of imprisonment, meant that his complaint had to be filed by the end of 2000 to be timely. His complaint in this action was not filed until August 20, 2003, and thus was more than 2-1/2 years too late. The claims therein are time-barred and the statute of limitations defense is complete and obvious on the face of the complaint. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-30 (9th Cir. 1984)(sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915);see also Pisciotta v. Teledyne Industries, Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996) (court may grant a motion to dismiss based on the running of the statute of limitations "only if the assertions in the complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled").
The complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGMENT
The complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.