Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01350-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01350-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 10)

The events underlying this action span from January 3, 2015 to February 16, 2017. (See

Doc. 1 at 9-27.) Plaintiff initiated this action on September 26, 2019, more than two years later. 

(See Doc. 1.) In California, the statute of limitations in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 is two years. Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred by the 

statute of limitations. (Doc. 10.)

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause on April 23, 2020. (Doc. 11.) In his 

response, Plaintiff states that he is serving a sentence of 25 years to life, and he correctly points 

out that the applicable statute of limitations has been tolled while he has been incarcerated. (Id. at 

1.) In California, the statute of limitations is tolled for a maximum of two years if and while a 

plaintiff is imprisoned, unless the plaintiff is serving a sentence of life without the possibility of 

parole. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a); Brooks v. Mercy Hosp., 1 Cal. App. 5th 1, 7 (Cal. Ct. 

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 12 Filed 04/27/20 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

App. 2016). Plaintiff also states that it took him more than a year to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. (Doc. 11 at 1.) The statute of limitations is “tolled while a prisoner completes the 

mandatory exhaustion process.” Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 943 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations 

omitted).

Based on the above, the Court DISCHARGES its order to show cause (Doc. 10). The 

Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 12 Filed 04/27/20 Page 2 of 2