Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06538/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06538-12/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 Plaintiff also alleges a claim for relief based on violation of the California Constitution. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK ALLEN WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-cv-06538-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND ON THE

GROUNDS THAT THE DEADLINE TO

AMEND HAS PASSED, AND THE CLAIMS

ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF

LIMITATIONS (Docs. 130 and 134)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SCAN LODGED PROPOSED THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY

FOR THE RECORD (Doc. 131) 

Plaintiff Jack Allen Wilson (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 6, 2004, against defendants Terhune, Presley,

Galaza, Yee, and Bendon (“defendants”) for enacting, implementing, and/or enforcing policies

and/or practices that resulted in deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. On November 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave 1

to file a third amended complaint and a proposed third amended complaint. On December 28, 2006,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to add two defendants to his proposed third amended

complaint. Defendants did not file a response to either motion.

///

Case 1:01-cv-06538-LJO -GSA Document 135 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 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 scheduling order issued on September 20, 2006, was specifically limited to plaintiff and defendant 2

Presley, as to plaintiff’s claim against defendant Presley. (Doc. 127.) Thus, plaintiff may not move to amend to add

new parties under that scheduling order.

2

The deadline to amend the pleadings in this action was August 17, 2006, and on October 17,

2006, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the deadline on the ground that plaintiff

failed to show good cause to modify the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). (Docs. 99, 129.) 2

Accordingly, the time within which to move to amend the complaint expired on August 17, 2006,

and plaintiff’s motions are untimely.

Further, the events at issue in this action occurred between December 14, 2000, and

November 27, 2002, while plaintiff was housed at California State Prison-Corcoran. (Doc. 42, ¶15.)

Plaintiff seeks to add new parties to this action, although the bases of his claims remain the same -

alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while housed at CSP-Corcoran.

Federal law determines when a civil rights claim accrues. See Elliott v. City of Union City,

25 F.3d 800, 801-802 (9th Cir. 1994). Under federal law, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows

or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action. Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121,

1128 (9th Cir.1996). Because section 1983 contains no specific statute of limitations, federal courts

should borrow state statutes of limitations for personal injury actions in section 1983 suits. See

Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Torres v. City of Santa Ana, 108 F.3d 224, 226 (9th Cir.

1997); Vaughan v. Grijalva, 927 F.2d 476, 478 (9th Cir. 1991). At the time plaintiff’s claim accrued,

the applicable statute of limitations in California for section 1983 claims was one year. Cal. Civ.

Proc. Code § 340(3); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 335.1,

extending the statute of limitations from one year to two years, does not apply to claims that accrued

prior to January 1, 2003). 

In actions where the federal court borrows the state statute oflimitation, the courtshould also

borrow all applicable provisions for tolling the limitations period found in state law. See Hardin v.

Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 539 (1989). Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 352.1,

a two-year limit on tolling is imposed on prisoners. Section 352.1 provides, in pertinent part, as

follows:

Case 1:01-cv-06538-LJO -GSA Document 135 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 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

3

(a) If a person entitled to bring an action, mentioned in Chapter 3 (commencing with

Section 335), is, at the time the cause of action accrued, imprisoned on a criminal

charge, or in execution under the sentence of a criminal court for a term less than for

life, the time of that disability is not a part of the time limited for the commencement

of the action, not to exceed two years. 

Thus, incarcerated plaintiffs have three years from the date that the cause of action accrued in which

to file suit, if the cause of action accrued while said plaintiff was incarcerated. 

Plaintiff seeks to add new parties upon whom he wishes to impose liability for claims which

accrued between December 14, 2000, and November 27, 2002. Plaintiff had three years within

which to file suit. At the latest, the statute of limitations ran on plaintiff’s claims on November 27,

2005.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to amend, filed November 2, 2006, and December 28, 2006, are

DENIED on the grounds that the deadline to amend the pleadings has expired, and

the statute of limitations bars plaintiff’s new claims in any event; and

2. The Clerk’s Office shall scan plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint, lodged

November 2, 2006, to make complete the court’s record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06538-LJO -GSA Document 135 Filed 01/24/07 Page 3 of 3