Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00446/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00446-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-0446-CAB-KSC

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID FLORENCE,

CDCR #H-42260,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. BENROSTROL, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-0446-CAB-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

AND § 1915A(b)

I. Procedural History

On March 6, 2019, Plaintiff, David Florence, an inmate currently incarcerated at 

North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”) located in Delano, California filed a civil rights 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). In addition, Plaintiff filed a 

certified copy of his inmate trust account statement which the Court liberally construed as 

a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF 

No. 2). 

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:19-cv-0446-CAB-KSC

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

On April 22, 2019, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and 

sua sponte DISMISSED his entire Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A. (ECF No. 3.) In 

addition, the Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was nearly one hundred and 

fifty (15) pages and named forty-five (45) defendants violated Rule 8 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended 

pleading in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s Order. 

(Id. at 9.) On June 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

(ECF No. 5.) 

II. Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A

As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, because he is a prisoner and is 

proceeding IFP, his FAC requires a pre-Answer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a 

prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state 

a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or 

malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 

903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 

680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).

“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 

1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard 

applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6)”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, 

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:19-cv-0446-CAB-KSC

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

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121.

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the “deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 

Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the 

United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person 

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Long v. Cty. of 

Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

B. Statute of Limitations

All of the claims contained in Plaintiff’s FAC, like his original Complaint, are 

allegations of constitutional violations arising from the time he was housed at the Richard 

J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in 2013 and 2014. (See FAC at 1, 3-24.) As 

the Court previously informed Plaintiff, “[a] claim may be dismissed [for failing to state a 

claim] on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations only when 

‘the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint.’” (ECF No. 3 at 5 

citing Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 969 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (quoting Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 997 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

“‘A complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 

prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.’” Id. (quoting 

Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. U.S., 68 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also Cervantes v. 

City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1276-77 (9th Cir. 1993) (where the running of the statute 

of limitations is apparent on the face of a complaint, dismissal for failure to state a claim 

is proper, so long as Plaintiff is provided an opportunity to amend in order to allege facts 

which, if proved, might support tolling); see also Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. 

Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 216 F.3d 764, 788 (9th Cir. 2000) (court may raise the 

defense of statute of limitations sua sponte), overruled on other grounds by Gonzalez v. 

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:19-cv-0446-CAB-KSC

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

Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 389 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc); Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 

1163 (11th Cir. 2003) (upholding sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

of prisoner’s time-barred complaint). 

Because section 1983 contains no specific statute of limitation, federal courts apply 

the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Jones v. Blanas, 393 

F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004); 

Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999). Before 2003, California’s statute of 

limitations was one year. Jones, 393 F.3d at 927. Effective January 1, 2003, the 

limitations period was extended to two. Id. (citing CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 335.1). The 

law of the forum state also governs tolling. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394 (2007) 

(citing Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 538-39 (1989)); Jones, 393 F.3d at 927 (noting 

that in actions where the federal court borrows the state statute of limitation, the federal 

court also borrows all applicable provisions for tolling the limitations period found in 

state law). 

Under California law, the statute of limitations for prisoners serving less than a life 

sentence is tolled for two years. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 352.1(a)1; Johnson v. 

California, 207 F.3d 650, 654 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds, 543 U.S. 499 

(2005). Accordingly, the effective statute of limitations for most California prisoners is 

three years for claims accruing before January 1, 2003 (one year limitations period plus 

two year statutory tolling), and four years for claims accruing thereafter (two year 

limitations period plus two years statutory tolling). In addition, the limitations period for 

prisoners is tolled while the “prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion process.” 

Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 943 (9th Cir. 2005).

 

1

It appears that Plaintiff is unlikely to be entitled to the two extra years of tolling as he is currently 

service a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. See CDCR Inmate Locator, Public Inmate 

Locator System, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/Details.aspx?ID=H42260 (website last visited July 8, 

2019.)

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:19-cv-0446-CAB-KSC

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

Unlike the length of the limitations period, however, “the accrual date of a § 1983 

cause of action is a question of federal law that is not resolved by reference to state law.” 

Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388; Hardin, 490 U.S. at 543-44 (federal law governs when a 

§ 1983 cause of action accrues). “Under the traditional rule of accrual ... the tort cause of 

action accrues, and the statute of limitation begins to run, when the wrongful act or

omission results in damages.” Wallace, 549 U.S. at 391. Put another way, “[u]nder 

federal law, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury 

which is the basis of the action.” Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 955; TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174

F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, Plaintiff’s claims accrued in 2013 and 2014. See FAC at 1 3-24. However, 

because Plaintiff is serving a life sentence, he is not entitled to an additional two (2) years 

of statutory tolling pursuant to CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 352.1(a). Johnson, 207 F.3d at 

654; see also Jones, 393 F.3d at 928 n.5 (noting that “California courts have read out if 

the statute the qualification that the period of incarceration must be ‘for a term less than 

for life’ in order for a prisoner to qualify for tolling.”). Consequently, based on the face 

of Plaintiff’s own pleading, it is clear Plaintiff’s claims fall far outside California’s twoyear statute of limitations.

Finally, Plaintiff’s claims could be considered timely if, in his FAC, he alleges 

facts sufficient to show the limitations period may be equitably tolled. See Cervantes, 5 

F.3d at 1276-77. Generally, federal courts also apply the forum state’s law regarding 

equitable tolling. Fink, 192 F.3d at 914; Bacon v. City of Los Angeles, 843 F.2d 372, 374 

(9th Cir.1988). Under California law, however, Plaintiff must meet three conditions to 

equitably toll the statute of limitations: (1) he must have diligently pursued his claim; (2) 

his situation must be the product of forces beyond his control; and (3) Defendants must 

not be prejudiced by the application of equitable tolling. See Hull v. Central Pathology 

Serv. Med. Clinic, 28 Cal. App. 4th 1328, 1335 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994); Addison v. State of 

California, 21 Cal.3d 313, 316-17 (Cal. 1978); Fink, 192 F.3d at 916. 

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:19-cv-0446-CAB-KSC

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

As currently pleaded, however, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to plead any 

facts which, if proved, would support any plausible claim for equitable tolling. See 

Cervantes, 5 F.3d at 1277; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 

(9th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff carries the burden to plead facts which would give rise to 

equitable tolling); see also Kleinhammer v. City of Paso Robles, 385 Fed. Appx. 642, 643 

(9th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, the Court finds the running of the statute of limitations is apparent on 

the face of Plaintiff’s FAC, and therefore he has failed to state a claim upon which 

section 1983 relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); § 1915A(b)(1).

C. Leave to Amend

Because Plaintiff has already been provided a short and plain statement of his 

pleading deficiencies, as well as an opportunity to amend those claims to no avail, the 

Court finds granting further leave to amend would be futile. See Gonzalez v. Planned 

Parenthood, 759, F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (“‘Futility of amendment can, by itself, 

justify the denial of ... leave to amend.’”) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 

(9th Cir. 1995)); Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 

2009) (“[W]here the plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend and has 

subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to its claims, [t]he district court’s 

discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted) (second alteration in original)).

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) DISMISSES this civil action without further leave to amend for failure to 

state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1);

2) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and 

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:19-cv-0446-CAB-KSC

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) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal and 

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7