Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01352/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01352-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GILBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

FELIX IGBINOSA, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01352-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 

BARRED BY DOCTRINE OF RES 

JUDICATA 

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Joseph Gilbert, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 4, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated 

during his incarceration at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) between 2004 and 2009. His 

claims arise from his exposure to and contraction of Valley Fever. 

The statute of limitations which applies to Plaintiff’s federal § 1983 claims is two years.1

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of California, 766 F.3d 1191, 

1198 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff may be aware of the timeliness issue, as he alleges that this is an 

amended complaint which relates back to his original complaint in case number 1:09-cv-020650-

AWI-DLB, Gilbert v. Yates, et al., and that he discovered new evidence. (Comp., 7:20-26.) 

However, Plaintiff may not relate his complaint in this new action back to the complaint filed in 

his prior action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 473; Butler, 766 F.3d at 1201. 

 

1

Plaintiff may also be entitled to two additional years under the applicable tolling statute, if he is not serving a 

sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1.

Case 1:15-cv-01352-LJO-SKO Document 4 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Moreover, Plaintiff’s prior case, which involved his exposure to and contraction of Valley Fever

while at PVSP, was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted on February 10, 2011; and the ruling was affirmed on appeal on July 25, 2012. The 

doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars Plaintiff from bringing his claims a second time 

in a new suit.

2

 Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) days from 

the date of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, as barred 

by the doctrine of res judicata. Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1054-55.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from the prior judgment based on newly discovery evidence, his sole recourse is 

to seek relief in his prior case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). However, motions to set aside judgment based on newly 

discovery evidence must be brought within one year, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Case 1:15-cv-01352-LJO-SKO Document 4 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 2