Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01616/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01616-1/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 - 03cv1616

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMMY JAMES COCHRAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 03cv1616 JM(POR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

vs. REOPEN

WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

On or about May 7, 2007 the court received from Plaintiff a Motion to Reopen

(“Motion”) this case. The court denies the Motion without prejudice because Plaintiff

fails to demonstrate diligence in prosecuting this action and to adequately set forth steps

taken to prosecute the present action. 

Filed in August 2003, the present case has been languishing in this court for

about 45 months without Plaintiff having effectuated service of process on Defendants.

A brief review of the procedural history in this case reveals that Plaintiff has failed to

act with the requisite diligence in prosecuting this action. The court dismissed the

original complaint on October 10, 2003 with leave to amend. On November 24, 2003,

Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint and on December 2, 2003 the court granted

Plaintiff’s request for a 120 days continuance to file an amended complaint. 

On November 11, 2004 this court issued its first OSC to plaintiff to show cause

why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In response, Plaintiff

Case 3:03-cv-01616-JM-POR Document 33 Filed 10/03/07 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

1

 At the time of dismissal, the court was unaware that Plaintiff had filed a Notice of Action

(“Notice) on March 26, 2007. Even if the court had considered the Notice, dismissal still would have

been appropriate as Plaintiff failed to show cause why the complaint should not have been dismissed.

- 2 - 03cv1616

represented that he suffers from mental and physical disabilities which hindered his

ability to prosecute this action but that Plaintiff, with the assistance of jailhouse

lawyers, desired to prosecute the action. The court did not dismiss the case. On March

22, 2006 Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint and the court ordered the United

States Marshal to effectuate service on Defendants as directed by Plaintiff. On April

27, 2006 the summons were returned unexecuted because the identified Defendants,

Ms. Wilson and Ms. Cornwell, could not be located by the Marshal at the Donovan

Correctional Institute. (Docket No. 21). 

On May 24, 2006, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to file a third amended

complaint. On June 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint naming Warden

Robert Hernandez as the sole defendant. Plaintiff has yet to serve the third amended

complaint. On March 13, 2007 the court issued another OSC to plaintiff to show cause

why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On March 28, 2007 the

court entered an Order Dismissing Complaint For Failure to Prosecute (“March 2007

Order,” Docket No. 28).1

Here, the court declines to reopen this case. This case lay dormant for over 45

months. No Defendant has yet to be served, despite repeated notice from this court that

Plaintiff’s complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Link v.

Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (court has inherent authority to dismiss

action for failure to prosecute). During an extended period of time such as this,

memories fade, potential evidence may be lost, and witnesses may change employers,

move, or die. Critical evidence to the prosecution or defense of this action may be lost

by Plaintiff’s inability to generally comply with the service requirements of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and judicial policies favoring expeditious and just resolutions

of disputes. The dismissal of the complaint, not the action, will not substantially

prejudice Plaintiff in the sense that the present dismissal does not operative as a

Case 3:03-cv-01616-JM-POR Document 33 Filed 10/03/07 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

2

 The court is mindful that the statute of limitations presents a challenge to Plaintiff in any

future action. However, the statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling. Generally, federal

courts apply the forum state’s law regarding equitable tolling. Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th

Cir. 1999); Bacon v. City of Los Angeles, 843 F.2d 372, 374 (9th Cir. 1988). Under California law,

equitable tolling of a statute of limitations is appropriate where (1) plaintiff diligently pursued his

claims; (2) plaintiff’s situation is the product of forces beyond his control; and (3) the defendants must

not be overly prejudiced by the application of equitable tolling principles. 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, Plaintiff’s representations

of mental and physical disabilities, if fully developed, may support equitable tolling of the statute of

limitations.

- 3 - 03cv1616

dismissal on the merits, no substantive activity has yet to occur in this case, and

Plaintiff can commence a new action and seek therein any available legal or equitable

remedy.2

 

In sum, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 3, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:03-cv-01616-JM-POR Document 33 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3