Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01496/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01496-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rick Alton Foley, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

J. Hernandez, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-1496-PHX-SMM (ESW) 

 O R D E R 

 Plaintiff Rick Alton Foley, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Arizona State 

Prison Complex-Florence filed an Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Doc. 10). Defendant Peji filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34) asserting that Plaintiff’s 

claim against her is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff opposes the motion. 

(Docs. 38, 39, 41, 42, 43.) 

 The Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to Defendant Peji 

reasserting the statute of limitations defense in a motion for summary judgment. 

I. Procedural Background

 On October 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against various 

Defendants. (Doc. 10). On screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court 

determined that Plaintiff stated a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim in part of 

Count Four against Defendants Thomas, Hernandez, Peji, and Chatt and directed them to 

answer the claim. (Doc. 15). The Court dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants. 

(Id.). 

Case 2:13-cv-01496-SMM-ESW Document 62 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

 With regard to Defendant Peji, Plaintiff alleged that she denied him his right to 

view his Automative Summary Record and Adult Information Management System 

Records, which were necessary for Plaintiff to prepare for parole hearings. Plaintiff 

alleged that, as a result of this denial, he was denied parole and had to endure another six 

months of confinement. Plaintiff did not include any dates regarding the alleged denial in 

the Amended Complaint. 

 On June 30, 2014, Defendant Peji answered the Amended Complaint (Doc. 30). 

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant Peji’s Answer (formerly Doc. 33). 

Defendant Peji then filed the pending Motion to Dismiss. 

 In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Peji argues that Plaintiff’s Reply to 

Defendant Peji’s Answer reveals the date that the § 1983 claim accrued against 

Defendant Peji, which was two years before Plaintiff filed the Complaint. As such, 

Defendant Peji argues that the claim against her should be dismissed because it is barred 

by the statute of limitations.1

 On August 6, 2014, the Magistrate Judge sua sponte struck Plaintiff’s Reply to 

Defendant Peji’s Answer as “an improper pleading.” (Doc. 48). 

II. Discussion 

The Court first notes that it cannot consider the contents of Plaintiff’s Reply to 

Defendant Peji’s Answer as it is no longer part of the Record. Moreover, for the defense 

of the running of the statute of limitations to be decided on a motion to dismiss, the 

untimeliness must clearly appear on the face of the complaint. See Supermail Cargo, Inc. 

v. U.S., 68 F.3d 1204, 1206–1207 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A motion to dismiss based on the 

running of the statute of limitations period may be granted only ‘if the assertions of the 

complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that 

 1

 In Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Peji argues 

alternatively that Plaintiff’s claim against her should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed 

to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 44). The Court will not consider 

arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See, e.g., Wichansky v. Zowine, No. 

CV 13-1208-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 5594086, at *6 n.1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2014). 

Case 2:13-cv-01496-SMM-ESW Document 62 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

the statute was tolled.’”) (quoting Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th 

Cir. 1980)). 

 Because Plaintiff has not alleged any dates in his Amended Complaint, the Court 

cannot determine that the statute of limitations has run based on the allegations in the 

Amended Complaint. Accordingly, because the running of the statute of limitations 

cannot be determined on the face of the complaint, a statute of limitations defense is more 

properly determined on a motion for summary judgment. See Vernon v. Heckler, 811 

F.2d 1274, 1278 (9th Cir. 1987); Jablon, 614 F.2d at 682. 

 Accordingly, Defendant Peji’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied without prejudice 

to Defendant Peji reasserting the statute of limitations defense in a motion for summary 

judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant Peji’s 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34). 

 (2) Defendant Peji’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34) is denied without prejudice

to Defendant Peji reasserting the statute of limitations defense in a motion for summary 

judgment. 

 DATED this 21st day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01496-SMM-ESW Document 62 Filed 11/21/14 Page 3 of 3