Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00446/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00446-2/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-00446-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-00446-CAB-KSC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 9]

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). 

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 

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 10 Filed 09/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-00446-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

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 (150) 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.) 

However, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to correct any of the deficiencies 

noted in the Court’s previous Order and all the claims in his FAC were barred by the 

applicable statute of limitations. (ECF No. 6 at 3-6.) Plaintiff has now filed a “Motion 

for Reconsideration” of the Court’s July 12, 2019 Order. (ECF No. 9.)

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

A. Plaintiff’s Arguments

In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to tolling of his claims “while he 

exhausts his administrative remedies.” Pl.’s Mtn. at 5; citing Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 

926, 943 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an inmate is entitled to the tolling of the applicable 

statute of limitations while they are exhausting their administrative remedies as required 

by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)). In addition, while Plaintiff acknowledges that he is serving a 

life sentence without the possibility of parole, California courts have liberally construed 

California’s statutory law allowing for an additional two years of tolling only for inmates 

who are serving a sentence of a “term for less than life.” Pl.’s Mtn. at 9; citing 

CAL.CIV.PROC. CODE § 352.1.

B. Standard of Review

Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” 

may be filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year 

after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED. R. CIV. P.

60(c)(1). 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 10 Filed 09/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-00446-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

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is 

shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's 

decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 

been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J 

v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

On the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint and FAC, he clearly indicates that the events 

giving rise to his claims occurred in 2013 and up to September of 2014. See Compl. at 1; 

FAC at 1. Plaintiff filed this action on March 6, 2019. See Compl. at 1. Thus, he filed 

his action approximately four and one-half years after the alleged constitutional 

violations occurred. 

As the Court informed Plaintiff in both its April 22, 2019 and July 12, 2019 

Orders, 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).

California law allows for a two year statute of limitations. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE

§ 335.1. In addition, as stated above, inmates serving a term of less than life receive an 

additional two years of statutory tolling. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 352.1(a); Johnson v. 

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

(2005). Plaintiff acknowledges that he is serving a sentence of life without the possibility 

of parole. Pl.’s Mtn. at 4. However, even if the Court were to allow Plaintiff the extra 

two years of statutory tolling, his claims would still be untimely by a period of at least six 

months.

Plaintiff also argues, correctly, that he is entitled to tolling for the duration of time 

that he took the steps to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. Pl.’s Mtn. at 5; 

citing Valoff, 422 F.3d at 943. However, Plaintiff offers no plausible factual allegations 

regarding his attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies. Moreover, he does not 

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 10 Filed 09/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-00446-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

attach any exhibits to his Complaint, FAC, or his current Motion that would document his 

attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to any 

additional tolling pursuant to Valoff.

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

(ECF No. 9). 

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00446-CAB-KSC Document 10 Filed 09/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4