Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06922/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06922-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MISTRIEL,

CV F 03 6922 AWI WMW P

Plaintiff, 

KERN COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS

TIME BARRED

Plaintiff filed this action on December 24, 2003. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the

court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s claim appears to be barred by the statute of

limitations. Accordingly, plaintiff shall be provided with the opportunity to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed, with prejudice, as time barred.

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

Case 1:03-cv-06922-AWI -SKO Document 22 Filed 07/14/05 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

2

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 statues 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 (9thCir. 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); Abreu

v. Ramirez, 284 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1255-1258 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 25, 2003) (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 of limitation, the court should 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:

(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 alleges that between 1977 and 1981, defendants sexually molested plaintiff and

subjected plaintiff to sexual enslavement and exploitation.

Plaintiff is complaining of events that occurred between 1977 and 1981. Plaintiff did not file

this action until December 24, 2003, after more than three years had passed. Accordingly, plaintiff shall

show cause why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, as barred by the statute of

limitations.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall show cause

why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, as barred by the statute of

limitations; and

Case 1:03-cv-06922-AWI -SKO Document 22 Filed 07/14/05 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

3. The failure to file a response to this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed, with prejudice, as barred by the statute of limitations. ITIS

SO ORDERED.

Mmkd34Dated: July 13, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06922-AWI -SKO Document 22 Filed 07/14/05 Page 3 of 3