Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01703-4/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Louis Tamale,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 02-1703 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Avenal State Prison, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff proceeds without counsel in a civil rights action

based on events during his incarceration though he commenced this

action after his release. The events underlying plaintiff’s

claims occurred in 1999, 2000 and the first half of 2001. 

Presently before the court is defendants’ September 20,

2005, amended motion to dismiss, which plaintiff opposed October

17, 2005.

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

the court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true, read the 

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 76 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

complaint most favorably to plaintiff, give plaintiff the benefit

of every reasonable inference that appears from the pleading and

argument of the case and dismiss the complaint only if it is

clear no relief could be granted under any set of facts that

could be proved consistent with the allegations. Wheeldin v.

Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 658 (1963); Retail Clerks International

Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746,

754 n.6 (1963); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984). The court may consider documents attached to the

complaint in evaluating a motion to dismiss. Parks School of

Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995).

Defendants argue plaintiff’s action is barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520

U.S. 641, 644 (1997). It does not appear plaintiff lost goodtime credits, thus these cases are inapposite. 

Defendants also contend plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. 

Section 1983 does not proscribe a limitation period; instead this

court applies California’s personal injury limitation statute. 

Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1999). In California,

the applicable period as relates to this action is one year. 

Id.; Maldonado v. Harris, 370 (F.3d 945, 955 (9th Cir. 2004)

(California’s new two-year statute of limitation, effective

January 1, 2003, does not apply retroactively). Federal courts

also apply a forum state’s law regarding tolling. Fink. Federal

law governs when a claim accrues. See Elliott v. City of Union

City, 25 F.3d 800, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1994). A claim accrues when

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 76 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

the plaintiff knows, or should know, of the injury which is the

basis of the cause of action. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121,

1128 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff was released on parole July 7, 2001 and he knew of

his injuries before then. The applicable limitation period is

one year. He was entitled to tolling for the period of his

incarceration, but that period ended when he was released upon

parole July 7, 2001. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 352.1 (West Supp.

2002)(a plaintiff incarcerated for a term of less than life at

the time the cause of action accrues is entitled to two years

tolling for actions seeking damages); Deutch v. Hoffman, 165

Cal.App.3d 152 (1985) (status a parolee does not impair ability

to enforce claim and does not provide tolling of limitation

period).

Plaintiff’s complaint was received by this court July 18,

2002, and the court deems the complaint filed that date. The

limitation period already had expired. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends defendants’

September 20, 2005, amended motion to dismiss be granted and this

action be dismissed as time-barred. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 76 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: February 7, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 76 Filed 02/08/06 Page 4 of 4