Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01974/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01974-5/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

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

PASCUAL GOSSELIN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. TILTON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-01974-GSA-PC

 

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 25.)

I. BACKGROUND

Pascual Gosselin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

October 12, 2010, at the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1.) On October 21, 2013, the case was transferred to the 

Fresno Division. (Doc. 3.) This case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed by 

Plaintiff on October 29, 2012, against defendants Adams, Hubach, Taber, and Latraille 

(“Defendants”). (Docs. 11, 12.)

On November 24, 2013, the court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial 

deadlines for the parties. (Doc. 24.) On December 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for 

clarification of the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 25.)

///

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 26 Filed 12/18/13 Page 1 of 3
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

II. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

Plaintiff seeks clarification of the court’s finding in the Scheduling Order that Plaintiff 

commenced this action on October 12, 2012. Plaintiff asserts that he commenced this action, 

for purposes of the applicable statute of limitations, on October 1, 2010, because he signed the 

Complaint and mailed it to the court on October 1, 2010.

Plaintiff also reminds the court that service is still pending for defendants Hubach and 

Latraille. Plaintiff asserts that he has not received notice of service by the Marshal upon these 

defendants.

III. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION

A. Legal Standard

Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] civil action is 

commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Ordinarily, for purposes 

of a statute of limitations, papers and pleadings are considered filed when they are placed in the 

possession of the Court. See Cintron v. Union Pacific R., 813 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 1987). 

However, some courts have found that a prisoner’s § 1983 complaint commences, for purposes 

of the statute of limitations, when the prisoner places it in possession of the prison for mailing 

to the court. The Ninth Circuit held in Douglas v. Noelle that the mailbox rule of Houston v. 

Lack, under which a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed at the time the prisoner 

delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk, applies to § 1983 suits filed by 

pro se prisoners. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009); Houston v. Lack, 

487 U.S. 266, 1107, 108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988). In Noelle, the plaintiff, an inmate in custody at the 

Oregon Snake River Correctional Facility, provided evidence that he had placed his complaint 

in the mailbox at the facility no later than November 30, 2004, whereas the complaint was not 

delivered to the district court until December 9, 2004. Noelle at 1106-07. The Ninth Circuit 

decided that the plaintiff had complied with “the constructive filing rule of Houston” when he 

deposited his complaint in the locked prison mailbox designated for legal mail and therefore, 

for purposes of the applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiff’s case was commenced on 

November 30, 2004. (Id. at 1109.)

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 26 Filed 12/18/13 Page 2 of 3
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

B. Discussion

Here, a review of the court’s docket for this case shows that Plaintiff’s original 

Complaint was filed on October 12, 2010. (Court Docket.) The face page of the Complaint 

was stamped “Filed Oct. 12, 2010” by the Clerk of the Court, using the court’s official datestamp. (Doc. 1 at 1.) The court’s Scheduling Order reflects that under Rule 3, this case was 

commenced by filing of the complaint on October 12, 2010. 

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that normally may not be raised by 

the Court sua sponte. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-1230 (9th Cir. 1984). See

Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 988 F.2d 680, 686-87 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, defendants 

have not raised this affirmative defense. Thus, the issue of the statute of limitations in this case 

is not presently before the court, and no decision shall be made at this stage of the proceedings. 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that the court is aware of the status of service in this action. 

The United States Marshal shall provide Plaintiff with evidence in due time.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for clarification, filed on December 11, 2013, is 

HEREBY RESOLVED by this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 26 Filed 12/18/13 Page 3 of 3