Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01473-35/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

DANA GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROMERO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-01473-DAD-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND 

ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

DEFENDANT REBEL’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; 

GRANTING DEFENDANT ZIOMEK’S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; 

AND GRANTING DEFENDANT 

MUNDUNURI’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

ON THE PLEADINGS

(Doc. Nos. 57, 122, 158, 182.)

Plaintiff, Dana Gray, is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 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 January 18, 2017, findings and recommendations were issued recommending that: (1) 

defendant Rebel’s motion to dismiss be granted with thirty days leave to amend; (2) defendant 

Ziomek’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds be granted with

/////

/////

Case 1:13-cv-01473-DAD-GSA Document 184 Filed 03/28/17 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

thirty days leave to amend1; defendant Mundunuri’s motion for judgment on the pleadings due to 

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies granted and that plaintiff’s claims against 

defendant Mundunuri arising from events occurring after the filing of plaintiff’s original 

complaint on September 12, 2013, be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust her 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. No. 158.) The findings and recommendations

included notice that any objections thereto were to be file d within thirty days. (Id.) On February 

9, 2017, plaintiff was granted a thirty-day extension of time in which to file objections. (Doc. 

Nos. 167, 168.) On March 15, 2017, plaintiff requested a second thirty-day extension of time to 

file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 178.) On March 17, 2017, the 

assigned magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s request for a second thirty day extension of time to 

file objections, finding that plaintiff had already been granted two months to object and that she 

had failed to establish good cause for the granting of any additional time to do so. (Doc. No. 

180.) On March 27, 2017, plaintiff filed yet another motion seeking an additional thirty days in 

which to file objections to the January 18, 2017 findings and recommendations, referring to the 

unavailability of an unidentified expert witness but providing no other support for the requested 

extension of time. (Doc. No. 182.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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 proper analysis.

 

1

The nature of the motion for judgment on the pleadings brought on behalf of defendant Ziomek 

is somewhat unusual and is presented in a confusing fashion. With respect to the latter aspect of 

the motion, defense counsel confusingly stated: “Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative 

remedies to file an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Ziomek because the complaint 

was filed more than four years after the claim accrued.” (Doc. No. 122 at 4.) Despite the 

repeated references to administrative exhaustion, it is apparent that defendant Ziomek’s motion 

seeks dismissal solely on statute of limitations grounds. (Id. at 7.) Although typically a motion 

seeking dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is brought as a motion to dismiss, it may be 

brought as a motion for judgment on the pleadings; however, leave to amend following the 

granting of such a motion is also appropriate. See Jaeger v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., Case 

No. 15-cv-00164-HSG, 2016 WL 520985, at * (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2016) (granting 12(c) motion 

with leave to amend also granted); Brandhorst v. ESL, Inc., C 94-20528 RMW, 1995 WL 232381, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 1995) (granting 12(c) motion with leave to amend where the issue was 

whether the pro se plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations).

Case 1:13-cv-01473-DAD-GSA Document 184 Filed 03/28/17 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

Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s March 27, 2017, motion for extension of time to file objections to the January 

18, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 182) is denied;

2. The January 18, 2017 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL;

3. Defendant Rebel’s motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 57), 

filed on April 29, 2016 is GRANTED, with leave to amend;

4. Defendant Ziomek’s motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Rule 12(c)

(Doc. No. 122) is GRANTED with leave to amend;

5. Defendant Mundunuri’s motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Rule 

12(c) (Doc. No. 122), filed on August 31, 2016 is GRANTED and plaintiff’s claims 

against defendant Mundunuri arising from events allegedly occurring after the filing of 

plaintiff’s original complaint in this action on September 12, 2013 are dismissed from this 

case due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit with 

respect to those claims;

6. Plaintiff is granted thirty days in which to file a fifth amended complaint not exceeding 25 

pages in length, for the purpose of attempting to cure the deficiencies noted in the findings 

and recommendations by adding sufficient factual allegations demonstrating that her 

claims against defendants Rebel and Ziomek are not time-barred under California Code of 

Civil Procedure § 340.5; and

7. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01473-DAD-GSA Document 184 Filed 03/28/17 Page 3 of 3