Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00927/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00927-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERLAN LYNELL DICEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. RAYNER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00927 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 11, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.1

 

1 Defendants represent that the attached mail log (ECF No. 15) shows all of Plaintiff’s incoming and 

outgoing legal mail from January 1, 2015, through May 1, 2015, which does not include a mailing to this Court until 

February 20, 2015. However, these exhibits do not establish the judicially noticeable fact that Plaintiff did not 

attempt to file a complaint on January 22, 2015 (ECF No. 1 at 81). Defendants also argue equitable tolling does not 

apply because, assuming the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations, the instant complaint would be filed in the same forum as 

a previously filed complaint. Martell v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr., 67 Cal. App. 4th 978, 985 (1998). 

However, the issue is whether Plaintiff attempted to file a complaint, which for some reason did not occur. It appears 

there was no previously filed complaint. 

Case 2:15-cv-00927-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 05/27/16 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 11, 2016 are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is denied; and

3. Defendants Hasty and Rayner shall file their answer within 14 days. 

Dated: May 25, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-00927-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2