Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00770/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00770-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0770-grant IFP & dismiss 1 09cv0770

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID B. TURNER, Jr.,

CDCR #G-30643, Civil No. 09-0770 L (POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING NO INITIAL PARTIAL

FILING FEE AND GARNISHING

$350.00 BALANCE FROM

PRISONER TRUST ACCOUNT

[Doc. No. 2]; 

AND

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

& 1915A(b)

vs.

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM;

SAN DIEGO TROLLEY; SAN DIEGO

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; AND CITY OF

SAN DIEGO

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center in

Norco, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead,

he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

[Doc. No. 2].

Case 3:09-cv-00770-L-POR Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 1 of 8
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0770-grant IFP & dismiss 2 09cv0770

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee

only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v.

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner granted leave to proceed IFP

remains obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether his action is

ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847

(9th Cir. 2002).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a

prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,

1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess an initial

payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or

(b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater,

unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The

institution having custody of the prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20%

of the preceding month’s income, in any month in which the prisoner’s account exceeds $10, and

forward those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D.CAL.CIVLR 3.2. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. Plaintiff’s trust

account statement shows he has insufficient funds with which to pay any initial partial filing fee.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from

bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the reason that the

prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay [an] initial partial filing fee.”); Taylor, 281

Case 3:09-cv-00770-L-POR Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 2 of 8
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0770-grant IFP & dismiss 3 09cv0770

F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve” preventing dismissal

of a prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a “failure to pay ... due to the lack of funds available.”).

 Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2], and

assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the entire $350

balance of the filing fees mandated shall be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court

pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The PLRA’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also obligate the Court to review

complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated

or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for,

violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or

diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any prisoner civil

action and all other IFP complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail

to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)

(§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. However, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing an IFP or prisoner’s suit

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). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits,

but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing

§ 1915A). 

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

Case 3:09-cv-00770-L-POR Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 3 of 8
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0770-grant IFP & dismiss 4 09cv0770

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). Here, however, even

presuming Plaintiff’s allegations true, the Court finds his Complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b); Lopez, 203 F.3d at

1126-27; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446, n.1.

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct he complains

of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that conduct violated a

right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Humphries v. County of Los

Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170, 1184 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).

B. Statute of Limitations

Where the running of the statute of limitations is apparent on the face of the complaint,

dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper. See Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273,

1276 (9th Cir. 1993). 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). Before 2003, California’s statute of

limitations was one year. Jones, 393 F.3d at 927. Effective January 1, 2003, the limitations

period was extended to two years. Id. (citing CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 335.1). The 

two-years limitations period, however, does not apply retroactively. Canatella v. Van de Kamp,

486 F.3d 1128, 1132-22 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 955).

Unlike the length of the limitations period, however, “the accrual date of a § 1983 cause

of action is a question of federal law that is not resolved by reference to state law.” Wallace v.

Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007); Hardin v. Staub, 490 U.S. 536, 543-44 (1989) (federal law

governs when a § 1983 cause of action accrues). “Under the traditional rule of accrual ... the tort

cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitation begins to run, when the wrongful act or

omission results in damages.” Wallace, 549 U.S. at 391; see also Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 955

(“Under federal law, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the

injury which is the basis of the action.” ). 

Case 3:09-cv-00770-L-POR Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 4 of 8
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0770-grant IFP & dismiss 5 09cv0770

Here, Plaintiff claims he was subjected to excessive force by “MTS agents” on June 26,

2004. Thus, Plaintiff would have reason to believe that his constitutional rights were violated

more than five years ago. Id.; see also Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 955. However, Plaintiff did not

file his Complaint in this case until April 13, 2009, which far exceeds California’s statute of

limitation. See CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 335.1; Jones, 393 F.3d at 927. 

Plaintiff does not allege any facts to suggest how or why California’s two-year statute

of limitations might be tolled for a period of time which would make his claims timely. See,

e.g., CAL.CODE CIV.P. § 352.1 (tolling statute of limitations “for a maximum of 2 years” during

a prisoner’s incarceration); Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding that CAL.

CODE CIV.P. § 352.1 tolls a California prisoner’s personal injury claims accruing before January

1, 1995 for two years, or until January 1, 1995, whichever occurs later, unless application of the

statute would result in a “manifest injustice.”). Assuming that Plaintiff has been incarcerated

since 2004, pursuant to Fink, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants, accruing in 2004, would be

tolled for two years. California’s two-year statute of limitations would then begin to run --

requiring Plaintiff to file this action against these Defendants no later than June of 2008. 

Generally, federal courts also apply the forum state’s law regarding equitable tolling.

Fink, 192 F.3d at 914; Bacon v. City of Los Angeles, 843 F.2d 372, 374 (9th Cir. 1988). Under

California law, however, a plaintiff must meet three conditions to equitably toll a statute of

limitations: (1) he must have diligently pursued his claim; (2) his situation must be the product

of forces beyond his control; and (3) the defendants must not be prejudiced by the application

of equitable tolling. See Hull v. Central Pathology Serv. Med. Clinic, 28 Cal. App. 4th 1328,

1335 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994); Addison v. State of California, 21 Cal.3d 313, 316-17 (Cal. 1978);

Fink, 192 F.3d at 916. Here, however, Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts which, if proved,

would support the equitable tolling of his claims. See Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d

1273, 1277 (9th Cir. 1993). If Plaintiff chooses to amend his Complaint, he must plead facts

sufficient to support the equitable tolling of his claims.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-00770-L-POR Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 5 of 8
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0770-grant IFP & dismiss 6 09cv0770

Accordingly, the Court finds that all the claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint to have

occurred in 2004 must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) because

they are clearly time-barred. See Cervantes, 5 F.3d at 1277; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27;

Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446.

C. Municipal Liability

In addition, while not entirely clear, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from a time he was

apparently housed in the Central Jail. See Compl. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected

to excessive force and inadequate medical care by San Diego County Sheriff Deputies. Id.

However, Plaintiff does not identify any of these Deputies by name, instead he names the San

Diego Sheriff’s Department and the City of San Diego as Defendants. 

An agency or department of a municipal entity is not a proper defendant under § 1983.

Vance v. County of Santa Clara, 928 F.Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996). Rather, the county or

city itself is the proper defendant. See Id. “[A] municipality cannot be held liable solely because

it employs a tortfeasor -- or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983

on a respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691

(1978). A municipality may be liable under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive

relief where the constitutional deprivation was caused by the implementation or execution of “a

policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that

body’s officers.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 690; Board of the County Commissioners v. Brown, 520

U.S. 397, 117 S. Ct. 1382, 1388 (1997); Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1995).

To establish municipal liability, plaintiff must show: (1) he was deprived of a

constitutional right; (2) the city had a policy; (3) the policy amounted to deliberate indifference

to plaintiff's constitutional right; and (4) the policy was the “moving force behind the

constitutional violation.” Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996); see

Board of the County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 117 S. Ct. at 1388; Trevino v.

Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-00770-L-POR Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 6 of 8
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0770-grant IFP & dismiss 7 09cv0770

Thus, in order to state a § 1983 claim against the City or County of San Diego, Plaintiff

must allege facts showing that his injury was caused by individual officers whose conduct

conformed to an official city policy, custom or practice. See Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 624.

Therefore, even were the Court to liberally construe the Complaint as attempting to state

a claim against the City or County of San Diego, Plaintiff has not stated a § 1983 claim because

he has failed to allege that any individual police officer’s conduct conformed to an official city

policy, custom or practice. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which

section 1983 relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)(1).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2]

is GRANTED.

2. The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or

his designee, is ordered to collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the

filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount

equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income credited to the account and

forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY

IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Matthew Cate,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 942883,

Sacramento, California, 94283-0001.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b).

However, Plaintiff is further GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is

filed in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading 

Case 3:09-cv-00770-L-POR Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 7 of 8
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0770-grant IFP & dismiss 8 09cv0770

noted above. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his

previous pleading. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not realleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Further, Plaintiff is cautioned that should he elect not to amend, or if his Amended

Complaint still fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the dismissal of this

action may hereafter be counted as a “strike” against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 4, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00770-L-POR Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 8 of 8