Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01567/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01567-24/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

RONNIE E. BARRON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MARTEL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-1567 MCE DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a third amended complaint. Once an 

answer has been filed, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent 

of the adverse party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). An answer was filed on July 17, 2013. 

Plaintiff did not file a motion to amend or a stipulation to amend the complaint signed by all 

parties. 

Plaintiff is warned that the court will not permit plaintiff to amend a complaint if the 

amendment would be futile because plaintiff’s claims do not survive the statute of limitations. 

See Turner v. Sacramento Co. Jail, No. 2:09-cv-0117 WBS KJN P, 2010 WL 4237355, *3 (E.D. 

Cal. Oct. 21, 2010). Plaintiff has been proceeding for six years on claims against defendants 

Martinez and Todd arising from their conduct at Mule Creek State Prison from 2004 to 2007. In 

his third amended complaint, plaintiff adds claims against unnamed defendants arising from their

////

Case 2:10-cv-01567-MCE-DB Document 115 Filed 10/03/16 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

conduct at Pleasant Valley State Prison in 2004.1 (ECF No. 101.) As defendants point out, 

plaintiff’s new claims are subject to California’s two-year statute of limitations. See Wallace v. 

Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.1. That statute of limitations may 

be tolled, again by looking to California law. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 

2004). Under California law, the statute of limitations is tolled for up to two years where the 

cause of action accrues while the plaintiff is in prison. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352.1. For 

purposes of the statute of limitations, this court has already concluded that plaintiff’s cause of 

action accrued in January 2007, when plaintiff was diagnosed with Valley Fever. (ECF No. 57 at 

7.) Therefore, as this court held, plaintiff’s claims must have been filed by January 2011 in order 

to be timely. (Id. at 8.) 

Plaintiff new claims would only survive here if plaintiff's proposed amended complaint 

relates back to plaintiff’s initial June 22, 2010 complaint, which the court held was timely filed. 

(ECF No. 57 at 8.) Because the limitations period derives from state law, this court must 

consider both federal and state law to determine which affords “the more permissive” relation 

back standard. Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1201 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)). Under California law, plaintiff’s new claims would only relate 

back if plaintiff was correcting the identity of a previously-named defendant. Id.; Cal. Code. Civ. 

Proc. § 473(a)(1). If plaintiff had originally alleged claims against DOE defendants, he would 

have had three years from the date of filing his original complaint to identify those defendants. 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 474. In the present case, it does not appear that plaintiff asserted claims 

against DOE defendants. (ECF No. 1.) Even if plaintiff had alleged claims against DOE 

defendants, three years from the date of filing his 2010 complaint has long passed. Thus, under 

California law, plaintiff’s new claims would be barred by the statute of limitations.

The federal relation-back standard requires the moving party to show 

“(1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in 

the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have 

 

1

It is not clear if plaintiff’s third amended complaint includes other changes to the claims alleged 

in the second amended complaint. Should plaintiff make a motion to amend the second amended 

complaint, he must describe those changes. 

Case 2:10-cv-01567-MCE-DB Document 115 Filed 10/03/16 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

received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its 

defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a 

mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought 

against it.”

Butler, 766 F.3d 1191, 1202 (quoting Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 29 (1986)). 

Additionally, the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within 120 days after the 

original complaint is filed, as prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See Hogan v, 

Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 517 (2nd Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C)). Because 

plaintiff’s new claims challenge conduct that was not the subject of the original complaint and 

because plaintiff does not appear to be asserting a mistake in the identity of defendants, plaintiff’s 

new claims would not relate back under federal law and would be barred by the statute of 

limitations. 

Because plaintiff failed to file a motion to amend or a stipulation to amend the complaint 

signed by all parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF 

No. 101) is stricken, and this action will continue to proceed on the second amended complaint 

filed January 3, 2012. 

Dated: September 30, 2016

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/barr1567.10c

Case 2:10-cv-01567-MCE-DB Document 115 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 3