Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02567/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

CAREY DWAYNE DORSEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2567-LAB (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; 

ORDER SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

PREJUDICE; AND

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST

MERCY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL

CENTER,

Defendant.

On October 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging an injury on the job and

employment termination, supposedly in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for appointment

of counsel.

The motion to proceed IFP that Plaintiff is without funds to pay the required filing fee,

and is therefore GRANTED.

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any

person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua

sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is "frivolous, malicious, failing to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant

- 1 - 12cv2567

Case 3:12-cv-02567-LAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 11/29/12 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

immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845

(9th Cir. 2001) ("[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners");

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The current iteration of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing a Complaint filed pursuant to the

IFP provisions of section 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing

that the Complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez,

203 F.3d 1127; see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting

the "[t]he language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6)"). 

As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to sua sponte

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted as presently articulated. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s injury and

wrongful termination occurred in early to mid-1995. The applicable statute of limitations for

personal injury claims, and for disability discrimination claims in California is one year.

Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1137 n.2 (9 Cir. 2002). This means th

Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred by over 16 years.

The Court also takes notice that Plaintiff has filed two other suits in this District

against the same Defendant, 10cv2264-JAB (CAB), Dorsey v. Catholic Health Care West

Mercy Hospital & Medical Ctr. and 10cv2001-JAH (POR) Dorsey v. Catholic Health Care

West Mercy Hospital, both of which were dismissed. 

The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court certifies that no appeal from this order would be

taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 29, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2567

Case 3:12-cv-02567-LAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 11/29/12 Page 2 of 2