Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03100/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03100-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Although plaintiff appears pro se, currently he seems

to be getting legal assistance of some sort.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES TROY WALKER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOC., et

al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-3100 BZ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS

TO DEFENDANT C & H SUGAR

On November 7, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration regarding this Court’s

dismissal of his complaint.1 For the reasons set forth below,

plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN PART.

On June 13, 2007, plaintiff filed his complaint using an

employment discrimination complaint form claiming violations

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff

averred that he was discriminated against when defendants

treated him differently than other workers who were injured on

Case 3:07-cv-03100-BZ Document 45 Filed 12/28/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the job. Defendants Pacific Maritime Association, Marine

Terminals Corporation, and C&H Sugar Company, Inc. filed

motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). I granted defendants’

motions to dismiss finding, among other things, that some of

plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Longshore and Harbor

Workers Compensation Act and others were untimely.

On October 10, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for

reconsideration which was denied because it did not comply

with the local rules. On November, 7, 2007, plaintiff filed

this motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and

attached a copy of his proposed first amended complaint. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (a) provides that “a

party may amend a party’s pleading once as a matter of course

at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” The

Ninth Circuit permits a plaintiff to amend once as a matter of

right, even after a motion to dismiss has been granted, unless

the defects in the complaint are uncurable. Doe v. U.S., 58

F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“a motion to dismiss is not a

‘responsive pleading’ within the meaning of the Rule.”)

Because defendants have not filed a responsive pleading,

plaintiff is permitted to file an amended complaint unless it

fails to cure the defects which caused the prior dismissal. 

In his first amended complaint, plaintiff abandons his

Title VII discrimination claims and instead alleges negligence

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-03100-BZ Document 45 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Plaintiff originally sued I.L.U. Local 10. It is not

clear whether Local 10 was ever served, but since Local 10 is

not named in the Amended Complaint, it is DISMISSED.

3 Since C & H is a third party, it is not clear that

the Jones Act three year limitations period would apply to

plaintiff’s claims against C & H. If plaintiff is alleging

only state law negligence claims, presumably those statutes of

limitation would apply. In that event, it is not clear whether

this court would have subject matter jurisdiction over C & H -

the only remaining defendant. Plaintiff does not allege

diversity jurisdiction but C & H does not claim that it is not

diverse. These are issues to be resolved in the future,

beginning at the case management conference scheduled for

January 28, 2008.

3

claims against C & H and Marine Terminals only.2 

In an effort to avoid the statute of limitation arguments

which caused his first complaint to be dismissed, plaintiff

now contends that he “lost legal competency for several years”

and invokes the doctrine of equitable tolling. Plaintiff

however makes no effort to avoid the preemption doctrine which

caused his complaint to be dismissed against his employer,

Marine Terminals Corporation. Accordingly, for the reasons

set forth in my September 26, 2007 order, plaintiff’s

negligence claims against his employer Marine Terminals are

preempted by the Longshoreman and Harbor Workers Compensation

Act. 33 U.S.C. § 905. The proposed amendment as to Marine

Terminals would not cure this defect. 

As to C & H Sugar, regardless of which statute of

limitation applies, the Supreme Court has held that there is a

rebuttable presumption that all federal statutes of

limitations contain an implied equitable tolling provision.3

Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 - 97

(1990). See Abbott v. State, 979 P.2d 994, 998 (Alaska 1999)

Case 3:07-cv-03100-BZ Document 45 Filed 12/28/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

(equitable tolling applies to the three year Jones Act

limitations period). Equitable tolling of a limitations

period is appropriate in three circumstances: (1) where the

plaintiff has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing

a timely but defective pleading (Burnett v. New York Cent. R.

Co., 380 U.S. 424, 430 (1965)); (2) where extraordinary

circumstances outside the plaintiff's control made it

impossible for the plaintiff to timely assert his claim (Stoll

v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1999); or (3) where

the plaintiff, by exercising reasonable diligence, could not

have discovered essential information bearing on his claim

(Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 452 (7th Cir.

1990)). 

Here, the “extraordinary circumstances” exception may

apply. In his declaration in support of this motion,

plaintiff states that he “lost legal competency for several

years due to his head injury.” Mental incapacity and the

effect it has upon the ability to file a lawsuit can be an

“extraordinary circumstance” beyond a plaintiff's control. 

Robles v. Leppke, 2007 WL 2462058 * 1 (E.D. Cal.); see also

United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 348 (1997) (“[mental

disability], we assume, would permit a court to toll the

statutory limitations period”); Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919

(9th Cir. 2003) (mental incompetence may warrant equitable

tolling for the period the prisoner was incompetent if he can

show that the incompetency in fact caused the filing delay). 

However, the burden is on plaintiff to make a sufficient

showing of mental incompetence. Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d

Case 3:07-cv-03100-BZ Document 45 Filed 12/28/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1999), (equitable tolling is proper where

“overwhelming evidence” demonstrated that complainant was

completely disabled during the limitations period); see also

Grant v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 163 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th

Cir. 1998) (letter from psychologist inadequate basis for

equitable tolling). 

Thus, while it is not clear that plaintiff will be able

to make a sufficient showing of mental incompetency for the

time period in question, construing his pleadings in the light

most favorable to him, it does appear that there might be some

plausible basis for application of the equitable tolling

doctrine in this pro se case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED as to

defendant C & H Sugar. The Clerk is directed to file a copy

of plaintiff’s first amended complaint. C & H shall respond

by January 22, 2008.

Dated: December 28, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Walker v. Pac. Maritime\ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT.BZ VERSION.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-03100-BZ Document 45 Filed 12/28/07 Page 5 of 5